Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 October 15

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 14 October	16 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Youth (2001 film)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This fails notability guidelines for Wikipedia. This film does not have any reliable sources indicating its notability

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:26, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is completely unreferenced and I could not find any English language references. It's possible foreign language references exist, but in their absence, fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 01:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. CSD G7 TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2 Ply Government

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Semi-advertorialized article about a band, not properly referenced as clearing WP:NMUSIC. The sources here are their own self-published website, a band member's LinkedIn résumé and a directory entry in an indiscriminate "all local bands" database which isn't even for this band, but for one band member's former band -- which means none of them are reliable or notability supporting sources. As always, bands are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist; they need to have achieved something that passes NMUSIC, and have reliable source coverage about them in media to support it. Furthermore, this is a likely conflict of interest, as the creator's username corresponds to the name of one of the band members. Bearcat (talk) 23:54, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:54, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:54, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete per WP:SNOW. bd2412 T 11:08, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Dickin

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Individual is no longer a public figure/does not appear to have a public profile. He appears to have been a journalist for a former publication and hasn't been published in another for several years. Gentek16 (talk) 23:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The rationale provided by the nominator is not valid but in any case the article is sourced to the subject’s own website except for a single event in 2013 so on the basis of WP:BLP1E I think deletion is appropriate. Mccapra (talk) 04:11, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing stated in the article hands him an "inherent" notability freebie — writers are not automatically guaranteed Wikipedia articles just because their writing exists — but the article is not reliably sourced anywhere near well enough to actually get him over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 18:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find sources for notability. Barca (talk) 01:08, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There just isn't a lot of press about the subject that isn't merely a passing mention (or just an article he wrote himself). Gargleafg (talk) 01:53, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. I hate to pile on, but ... Journalists do not automatically inherit notability from the publications that publish them or about whom they cover. Coverage is local to Ottawa, or his own website. Bearian (talk) 22:30, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Pledger

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails notability guidelines per WP:CREATIVE. The page mainly seems like an extended CV or LinkedIn page. (see: WP:RESUME. KidAd (talk) 23:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree with ~~Shellwood~~KidAd's original nomination but I have since made significant edits including the removal of promotional/CV-type content and the addition of WP:IRS citations. As a result I think this article can be kept following WP:HEY. The subject of the page is widely recognised as a notable figure in the performing arts and is the subject of several WP:IRS articles. Cabrils (talk) 05:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cabrils: I didn't nominate the article, I was merely doing some deletion sorting. And for the record I have no opinion about whether the article should be kept or not. Shellwood (talk) 14:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Shellwood: Apologies Shellwood-- have corrected my comment. Cabrils (talk) 01:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:24, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:24, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - stub article but he meets GNG for various awards, etc. and has reliable sources. Bookscale (talk) 11:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bookscale, other than the non-notable Kenneth Myer Medallion for the Performing Arts, which awards has Pledger won? His own website mentions that "David is the recipient of numerous career awards," but doesn't list any. Vexations (talk) 12:44, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I may have to amend my vote as the article has been essentially decimated since I nominated it the other day. Either way, the stub is is so anemic that it illustrates how non-notable the subject it. KidAd (talk) 22:02, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@KidAd: I made a further search and was able to add one more award. Your point carries weight but I would still be inclined to keep the article. Cabrils (talk) 01:58, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Keep I don't know if awards are really a definitive sign of notability, but there are at least enough sources out there to keep me from outright voting to delete this one. Unfortunately, it's hard to see what the sources currently on the page actually say because there are no links. But, I'm erring on the side of good faith, here. Gargleafg (talk) 02:24, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have started adding links to the sources (or moving them from External links to sources) (Gargleafg, you may like to take a look). Whether the awards are notable or not, they resulted in newspaper profiles about him. There are also reviews of his work, some currently in External links - if information about the performances was previously in the article, it's not now, and will have to be added. The article doesn't even name the performance group he founded. I would point out to KidAd that, per WP:ARTN, "Article content does not determine notability". Also, per WP:NEXIST, "The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable." Cabrils has added more sources, and more can be added, with more information from them about his performances. He meets WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks RebeccaGreen. Cabrils (talk) 23:51, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. Passes WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 01:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:19, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nur Nasreen Ibrahim

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a person who does satisfy WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG working for a show which has won awards does not make them notable. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - news producers are almost always run of the mill. and we almost always delete their articles, even when they win an Emmy. Otherwise, we'd have articles on Fred Cwerner, Richard Bagala, Matt King, Meredith McGinn, and thousands more. This person in particular just started on a major show. Bearian (talk) 22:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is a lack of significant coverage of him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:36, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Return to draft This article was moved without explanation from AfC to mainspace on the day it was created - by another editor, not the creator. It still has its AfC Review pending tag. The subject of the article may not yet be notable, but the article creator should be given the opportunity to receive feedback from an AfC reviewer, learn about notability guidelines, and add more sources. (John Pack Lambert, your !vote would be a little more convincing if you got the subject's gender correct .... [1]) RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:29, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify This article escaped the AfC process without review, the AfC tag is still on the top. Let it incubate in draftspace. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per RebeccaGreen.4meter4 (talk) 01:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability.Strandvue (talk) 00:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/draftify wall of citations but no substance. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 00:14, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:21, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kulsoom Lakhani

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about an author Entrepreneur who does not seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR all references are simply directory listings. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:TNT, and WP:COPYVIO based on this web page. Even if this page were fixed somehow, there's virtually no in-depth coverage of the subject. Bearian (talk) 22:33, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Another AfC draft moved to mainspace with no explanation and no edits by the same editor who moved the draft about Nur Nasreen Ibrahim. This is not fair to the article creator. There appear to be some sources - whether they are enough to meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC or any WP:SNG, I don't know yet. It should be moved back to draft space for more work by the creator and/or other editors. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per RebeccaGreen. It should not have been moved from AFC.4meter4 (talk) 01:06, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify kick back into proper AfC process. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 00:15, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete per WP:SNOW. bd2412 T 11:08, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Prast

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This person does not qualify for Wikipedia. It is more a resume or advertisement for him and what he does. This type of article should never be allowed in Wikipedia. Navycrafted (talk) 22:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fluff erected on passing mentions. Nothing of depth. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:RESUME KidAd (talk) 23:34, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject is mentioned in a few articles, but I'm not seeing WP:SIGCOV in the least bit. Anything discussing his career in any depth is either a directory or a press release, neither of which are good for WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Gargleafg (talk) 02:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT, WP:NOTRESUME, WP:SPAM, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:MILL. This is a horrible mess, not an encyclopedia article. If if it could be fixed from the current c.v./spam, the subject is actually sort of run of the mill in finance. Bearian (talk) 22:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per above the subject does not satisfy WP:SIGCOV, Alex-h (talk) 16:34, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:18, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for Magnetic Resonance Investigations

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All university medical schools have imaging centers, and all university radiologists publish papers. The article has no independent references I can't find anything that would indicate this is notable. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:35, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:35, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Any salvageable content can be included in Hull Royal Infirmary if due. Alexbrn (talk) 08:35, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:01, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sadly. This is one of those things that should be notable because of all of the peer reviewed publications coming out of the institution but isn't do to the lack of sources about the institution itself. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 01:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Rogers Communications#Rogers Bank. Since content was merged, page history must be kept to preserve attribution. czar 00:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rogers Bank

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NORG and WP:Notability, and following similar nominations from Piotrus, this small bank subsidiary may not be notable given the relatively small single product, credit card, portfolio this banking subsidiary offers. Even if it's notable, with few substantive edits and only 2-3 sentences, this could easily be merged with Rogers Communications as a separate section (if it isn't already). Not every Canadian bank needs its own article until such time as one or more users want to fully develop an article. As such, this article seems to be either a permastub or an emerging permastub. Doug Mehus (talk) 19:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halkett99 (talk • contribs) 04:42, 16 October 2019 (UTC) Striking per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Mz7 (talk) 04:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Halkett99, But there's absolutely no added value in that delete...this article never should've been created in the first place since it lacks notability. It's also already mentioned in Rogers Communications, as far as I recall. Can I please convince you to change your vote? Thanks. Just looking to get this deleted and would appreciate a clean deletion. Thanks. Doug Mehus (talk) 05:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete agreed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halkett99 (talk • contribs) 05:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Halkett99, Thanks. I've updated the Rogers Communications article with the two- or three-sentences from Rogers Bank.Doug Mehus (talk) 05:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rogers Communications (or "merge" may be descriptive) because the discussion so far covers the fact this topic should be and/or is now covered in the redirect target article. --Doncram (talk) 18:15, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, Yeah, "merge" isn't exactly needed considering I'd already migrated the sentence or two into that section of Rogers Communications. I was hoping to do away without keeping the Rogers Bank redirect, but, on the other hand, someone could just well re-create it as a redirect. So, I wouldn't be opposed to a redirect, either. Besides, that shortened tag, properly redirecting to Rogers Communications#Rogers Bank would actually be helpful for those wishing to tag the non-notable banking subsidiary in related articles.

Merge/redirect to Rogers Communications#Rogers Bank, where the subject is covered, in lieu of deletion. It is useful to direct readers looking for more information about Rogers Bank to where it is covered. Cunard (talk) 23:45, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GifBoom

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Defunct service. Not obviously notable Rathfelder (talk) 21:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 21:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – There are some hits.[2][3][4] Nothing constituting significant coverage and all likely not independent (shill). Fails WP:ORGCRIT. Checked Google Books as well. Same result: no WP:SIGCOV. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I found mentions of the product in The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, and in a few peer reviewed journal articles: "Instafame: Luxury Selfies in the Attention Economy" by Alice E. Marwick, Public Culture, 2015, Vol.27(1 75), p.137; and "Depressed adolescents' positive and negative use of social media", Radovic, Ana ; Gmelin, Theresa ; Stein, Bradley D ; Miller, Elizabeth, Journal of Adolescence, February 2017, Vol.55, pp.5-15. However, gifboom was only mentioned tangentially and was not the primary subject of any of these articles. Ultimately fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 02:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep based on sources brought forward in discussion. RL0919 (talk) 22:33, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Fargo

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Most of the news is about a movie where her character is portrayed and really the sources fails to establish what she is notable for. Wikipedia is not a Linkedin of business executives, it very clearly fails to establish what she is notable. If you are an executive of a company, it doesn't makes you notable, lacks WP:RS, fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 21:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scatter My Ashes at Bergdorf's is a documentary that features her, not a movie where she is portrayed as a character. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 22:28, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 21:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not really anything about her outside documentary. WP:ONEEVENT. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:14, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and rework as subject is clearly notable, but the article is severly lacking. See the following articles about her in TIME, Forbes, Harper's Bazaar, Galerie Magazine, The New York Times, Observer, Business of Fashion, Wall Street Journal, Racked, Interview Magazine, and W Magazine for starters. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 22:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 22:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 22:40, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rework per the reliable sources that @Willthacheerleader18: has uncovered. Royal broil 02:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the sources shown by Willthacheerleader18, she meets WP:BASIC. Some of the coverage is lengthy, some is short, but those still contribute to notability, as "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:45, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per developments. --Doncram (talk) 20:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 22:34, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Ellenbogen

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a Linkedin of business executives, it very clearly fails to establish what she is notable. If you are deputy director of a company, it doesn't makes you notable, lacks WP:RS, fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Below the threshold. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:17, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I tired to verify some of the claims but couldn't. She dies not inherit notability as a spokesperson, unless that person is the President, or perhaps Secretary of Defense. I know lots of people who worked for Mayor Bloomberg over the years, she's one of many. FWIW, we have at least two acquaintances in common, both deans at law schools in NYC. Bearian (talk) 22:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable public relations professional.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:28, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus that MUSICBIO isn't met Nosebagbear (talk) 22:12, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Annabel Jarman

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NMUSICBIO. Mccapra (talk) 20:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the local coverage about her scholarship does not add up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:46, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any coverage besides what is in the article - and that is either not independent, or minor local coverage. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. GNG has been reasonably demonstrated to have been met, and there aren't any arguments as to why GNG should not apply in this instance. A more generic discussion regarding the handling of the topic area is taking place. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pyaar ki Pungi

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSONG for seperate article, Merge to Agent Vinod (2012 film)#Soundtrack. CptViraj (📧) 03:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 03:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 03:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable song claiming no notability. Fails WP:NSONG. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dharmadhyaksha Please explain why you are voting for delete when this can be redirected as a valid search term. As per the WP:NSONG Note #1 --DBig Xrayᗙ 09:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dharmadhyaksha still waiting to hear back on this.--DBig Xrayᗙ 05:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic all the songs of the world, English or non-English, are valid search terms. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:39, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note 1 of WP:NSONG states Note 1: Songs that do not rise to notability for an independent article should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song.
So I note that in spite of pointing this out, you have insisted to !vote delete on the article of a song that reliable media have called hit/superhit/chartbuster. --DBig Xrayᗙ 10:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some superb masterpieces of "reliable media" that has been presented is using very vague words. And such vague words from at least one of the so called reliable media can be presented for so many songs. So what stops from creating redirects is just the mention of the song in some editorial piece somewhere. Such criteria might not seem lenient for western music wherein films dont have songs; but its absolutely rubbish to apply for Hindi film songs. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For several reasons. It passes the criteria #1 and #3 of WP:NSONG. Criteria #1 is passed as it was reported by Wall Street Journal as topping the music charts in India in March 2012. NDTV, India today and Scroll have called this song a Superhit, viral hit and hit respectively.[5] criteria #3 of WP:NSONG was met when Dinesh Lal Yadav released his viral re-enactment of the song in 2019. see NDTV As noted by Northamerica1000 in old Afd (and I agree) that this meets WP:GNG per: [6], [7], [8], [9]. --DBig Xrayᗙ 09:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping other participants of the AfD1. User:Northamerica1000 and User:Secret of success.--DBig Xrayᗙ 09:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wall Street Journal ref says ""Pyaar Ki Pungi" is gaining popularity in India and has been topping the charts." NSONG requires it be "ranked on national or significant music or sales charts". We dont know what charts WSJ is talking about and hence we dont know if they satisfy the #1-NSONG criteria. Also, NSONG says "(Note again that this indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable.)" Emphasis is not mine, but original in the guideline.
The so called "superhit", "viral hit" and "hit" by NDTV, India Today and Scroll are passing mentions in articles which are about other songs/albums.
Re-enactment by Yadav is not same as "independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups". This re-enactment is ~~more like~~ a TikTok video and not re-released recording which is expected by NSONG.
The other 4 references you are giving: two refs of HT are not returning anything. The other two from TOI and Yahoo are about the Single Event controversies which some XYZ claimed in news to be plagiarism and did not further pursue any legal course of action on it. Speaks very much about the possibly raised plagiarism claim just for publicity.
Apart from all this; NSONG says "Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." This isnt happening here. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We will have to accept when a reliable source publishes that a song is topping the charts. You can go and dig which specific charts, but the fact that it does is enough.
The very fact that they are using a superlative qualifier such as a superhit song, makes it pass our WP:GNG criteria.
The re-enactment video can be considered as a re-release of the song. The fact that it went viral, makes it notable for addition into the article.
those HT links are from AfD1, they can be checked at web archives.
The subject is a hit song. it is notable and can be reasonably expanded. Remember WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP --DBig Xrayᗙ 11:47, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No! Our guideline redirects to a detailed WP:CHART. If you can provide reference that WSJ's usage of word "chart" has similar or equivalent meaning then maybe we can consider it on facevalue. WP:CHART gives a huge list of websites that roam around as "chart" but are not considered as notable enough. We dont know what WSJ is talking about. You will have to do the digging to prove notability.
Passing mentions are still passing mentions. GNG requires significant coverage; not one or half liners.
Can be considered? Why? DJ Doll's "Kanta Laga", Harry Anand's "Chadti Jawani", Shankar-Ehsan-Loy's "Ae Watan", Chirantan Bhatt's "Har Kisi Ko", etc. are the independent releases by notable artists that NSONG expects. Lip-syncing on the original song on Tiktok is not whats expected here. Some video becoming viral in itself is not a notability standard thats expected as viral is a vague term and clickbaits can make anything seem viral.
Can be or can't be. Lets not assume notability on non-verifiable sources.
But AfD is for establishing notability; which is not happening here. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have said all I had to say. Let's agree to disagree. --DBig Xrayᗙ 07:37, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The HT link discussed above can be found here [10]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On 14 March 2012, Hindustan Times reported that the song was "trending like hot cakes online" and was en route to the top of all the charts.^[1]. India today reported the song as a chartbuster.^[2] --DBig Xrayᗙ 08:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Make way for Pyaar Ki Pungi". Hindustan Times. 13 March 2012. Archived from the original on 7 October 2019. Retrieved 7 October 2019.
^ "Now Mika wants to lend voice for Amitabh, Aamir". India Today. Retrieved 7 October 2019. {{cite news}}: |first1= missing |last1= (help)

Considering how in-depth the editorial works is (the article has 3 sentences and one of it is a quote), the usage of "trending like hot cakes", "making its way atop all charts", "turned out to be a chartbuster", etc is WP:WEASEL. Now of course WP:WEASEL does not apply to off-wiki; but again as stated above, in case of WSJ, please let us know what these charts are. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dharmadhyaksha. ∯WBG^converse 17:48, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect per below !votes.
see Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Per_nominator/X--DBig Xrayᗙ 07:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am convinced by the arguments of DBigXray about standalone notability of this song, as a derivative of winning popular/acclaimed awards. This's a keep from me. ∯WBG^converse 16:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In continuation of my Keep !vote above, I would note that Bollywoodlife reported this song among the top 5 songs sung by Mika Singh, which makes the song a major work of a notable artist. It called Pyar ki Pungi as the "craziest song" of Mika's career, "which struck a chord with the masses.^[1] The song also passes WP:GNG as it has been significantly covered in articles devoted to it,^[2]^[3]^[4] and legal case.^[5] Hindustan Times also covered the song in 2 separate articles.^[6]^[7]--DBig Xrayᗙ 06:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Happy Birthday, Mika Singh: 5 hit numbers to celebrate Bollywood's cool singer!". Bollywood Life. 10 June 2019. Retrieved 11 October 2019.
^ "Pritam talks Pyar Ki Pungi!". BollySpice.com - The latest movies, interviews in Bollywood. 7 March 2012. Archived from the original on 11 October 2019. Retrieved 11 October 2019.
^ Sahni, Diksha (22 March 2012). "'Agent Vinod' Song in Copyright Trouble". WSJ. Archived from the original on 30 September 2019. Retrieved 11 October 2019.
^ "'I'll do the talking' will stand out despite Kareena's mujra' - Indian Express". indianexpress.com. Retrieved 11 October 2019.
^ "Pungi 'Panga': Iranian Band Barobax Apologises To Pritam For Plagiarism Accusation". Movie Talkies. Retrieved 11 October 2019.
^ "Full Song: Agent Vinod's peppy Pyaar Ki Pungi". Hindustan Times. 1 March 2012. Retrieved 11 October 2019.
^ "Make way for Pyaar Ki Pungi". Hindustan Times. 13 March 2012. Archived from the original on 7 October 2019. Retrieved 11 October 2019.

Bollywoodlife, Bollyspice, Movietalkies are not WP:RS as has been discussed in various PRs/GAs/FAs.
The WSJ article you provided now is the same one that you provided above. So i have already argued about this WSJ article above. Btw, why is the WSJ url "blogs.wsj.com" and not just "www.wsj.com" like in this Hollywood film review of Gemini Man. Is the blog section not controlled by editorial team? That would make it non-RS.
The Indianexpress article is not WP:INDEPENDENT as it is an interview of the actress seen in the song and claiming the song to be wow and what-not.
The two articles published by HindutanTimes have been presented by you earlier. One of them has 3 full sentences of which one is quote. The second article of HT is about the song's release and describes in words what the song looks in the video. This is not criticism or review of the song. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:15, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please share the diffs of pages you are talking about. There has been no discussion on RSN about them. [11] [12] [13]
I have no reason to believe it is not reliable.
I had presented the articles earlier, that does not make it any less reliable or its coverage trivial. It is unfortunate to see that you feel that a full article of five paragraphs at [14] covering the song in Hindustan Times one of the most widely distributed newspaper of India is trivialized as a trivial coverage. IMHO HT article meets WP:SIGCOV. Anyway you have said what u had to say and we clearly disagree.--DBig Xrayᗙ 16:12, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whom are you trying to fool by calling it "FIVE PARAGRAPHS"? Its 9 sentences, 193 words.

FIVE PARAGRAPHS of editorialship and its content:
Sentence	Content	Is the content relevant with the song	How helpful is the content in proving notability?
1	It's comic, it's cheeky and it's catchy.	Yes	Yes
2	The complete version of Pyaar Ki Pungi, the latest song from Saif's spy thriller Agent Vinod, is finally out.	Yes	No
3	And, in this number, we will see a new and funny side to the actor as 'Majnu Vinod'.	Yes	No
4	The song, which sees a lighter and brighter Saif, has been sung by Mika Singh.	Yes	No
5	The lyrics have been penned by Amitabh Bhattacharya and the music has been composed by Pritam.	Yes	No
6	“The number will feature Malika and Saif. It’s being shot like a music video with a lot of colour, style and sultry dance moves. Malika has done a wonderful job again. All of us, including Saif, are happy with her,” a source in the Agent Vinod unit had told HT Cafe.	Yes	No
7	The song also stars Lisa Haydon's sister, Malika who recently attracted attention with her sultry Bollywood number, I’ll Do The Talking.	No	No
8	While Saif can be seen deliberately fooling around in front of the surveillance cameras, Malika looks seductive in a short skirt and deep shirt, topped with scarlet lipstick.	Yes	No
9	It is believed that a number of filmmakers have shown interest in roping in Malika for their films.	No	No

Update I would invoke WP:HEYMANN now to keep the article. The article has now been improved by me and expanded 2 times of the size when it was nominated for deletion. I have added sources proving WP:GNG and added articles from major newspapers in India discussing its chart position as evidence that this is indeed a notable song.--DBig Xrayᗙ 16:17, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The expansion of the article is irrelevant. Just like how HT has not standards and can break 200 words in 5 paragraphs, Wikipedia can do the same. I can stoop lower and expand your 700+ article to 1400+ even just for the sake of stuffing prose. What you really really need to see is how much of your content is really encyclopedic and not just filler. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:48, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A subset of the sources presented above were apparently good enough to close the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pyaar ki Pungi as keep, but here you are applying your unrealistic standards with a complete disregard of WP:BIAS in the Indian context. --DBig Xrayᗙ 07:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have any policy that stops articles from getting renominated. Also, please explain to me how you claim i am biased in here. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Before baselessly accusing me and crying foul, please click the link WP:BIAS and read it. Some further piece of advice on WP:AFDIND also. --DBig Xrayᗙ 09:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Buzz me when you actually have anything different to say about the topic. Till then lets save our time and efforts. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I did not buzz you. (2) you can unwatch the AfD if it disturbs you. --DBig Xrayᗙ 10:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In addition to the reliable source presented above for claiming keep due to WP:SIGCOV, here are some more sources discussing the song from BBC^[1], Zee News^[2]^[3], Dainik Jagran^[4], Hindustan Times^[5], filmibeat.com^[6]^[7], Firstpost^[8], Telegraph India^[9], Bollywood Hungama^[10], The Times of India^[11], Dainik Bhaskar^[12]--DBig Xrayᗙ 10:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ झा, पवन. "'एजेंट विनोद': मनोरंजक संगीत". BBC News हिंदी (in Hindi). संगीत समीक्षक बीबीसी हिंदी डॉट कॉम के लिए. Retrieved 14 October 2019.
^ "'पुंगी' पसंदीदा या 'मुजरा' मजेदार". Zee News Hindi. 17 March 2012. Retrieved 14 October 2019.
^ "'Pungi' relief for 'Agent Vinod' Saif Ali Khan". Zee News. 27 March 2012. Archived from the original on 14 October 2019. Retrieved 14 October 2019.
^ "करीना के मुजरे को टक्कर देंगे सैफ!". Dainik Jagran (in Hindi). Archived from the original on 14 October 2019. Retrieved 14 October 2019.
^ "Agent Vinod's Pungi song a copy?". Hindustan Times. 19 March 2012. Archived from the original on 14 October 2019. Retrieved 14 October 2019.
^ "करीना का दिल वर्सेज सैफ की पूंगी". filmibeat.com (in Hindi). 18 March 2012. Archived from the original on 14 October 2019. Retrieved 14 October 2019.
^ "सैफ ने बजा डाली करीना के दिल की पूंगी". filmibeat.com (in Hindi). 17 March 2012. Archived from the original on 14 October 2019. Retrieved 14 October 2019.
^ "'Agent Vinod's Pungi Bajaa Kar song original'- Entertainment News, Firstpost". Firstpost. 20 March 2012. Archived from the original on 14 October 2019. Retrieved 14 October 2019.
^ "Panga over pungi song". Telegraph India. Archived from the original on 14 October 2019. Retrieved 14 October 2019.
^ "Case against Agent Vinod's 'Pungi' dropped :Bollywood Latest News - Bollywood Hungama". Bollywood Hungama. 24 March 2012. Archived from the original on 14 October 2019. Retrieved 14 October 2019.
^ "Agent Vinod's Pungi song gets clean chit from Bombay HC | News - Times of India Videos". The Times of India.
^ "वीडियो में देखिए मजनूं बने सैफ कैसे बजा रहे हैं प्यार की पुंगी". Dainik Bhaskar (in Hindi). 1 March 2012. Archived from the original on 14 October 2019. Retrieved 14 October 2019.

At this point you're just trying to bludgeon the discussion, DBX. TryKid (talk) 14:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The song in question doesn't seem notable. As the others commented, it fails WP:NSONG. KingofGangsters (talk) 04:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE--DBig Xrayᗙ 06:55, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note For folks who are not aware, Superhit is the word used in India for Blockbuster. Here are more sources that are significantly covering the song^[1] and call it superhit, chartbuster.^[2]--DBig Xrayᗙ 06:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "AGENT VINOD's Pyar Ki Pungi making its way a top all charts". GlamGold. 10 March 2012. Retrieved 15 October 2019.
^ "Music mania, Bollywood music evolves each year; 2012 was no different. Whether the lyrics made sense or not, as long as foot-tapping numbers came our way we didn't mind…". tribuneindia.com. No. The Tribune Lifestyle. The Tribune, Chandigarh, India. Archived from the original on 31 December 2012. Retrieved 15 October 2019.

Merge. The lot of information in the article is about the song is "hit" which can be covered in two or three sentences. The copyright section is pointless. The production section has a long quote from Pritam and the whole section can be trimmed to few sentences. Other technical information is already covered in the article Agent Vinod. So I suggest trim, merge and redirect. A delete would be OK too after moving the content.-Nizil (talk) 06:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Pyaar ki Pungi#Trimmed version for merger. @DBigXray, KingofGangsters, TryKid, Dharmadhyaksha, and CptViraj:. Regards,-Nizil (talk) 07:20, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nizil thanks for sharing your opinion and pinging me. You may feel something to be pointless, but that does not mean it does not contribute towards notability or significant coverage. If reliable media considers it important enough to publish full page article on the topic, Wikipedia too should include this in the song article. The Plagiarism controversy of the song and subsequent court proceedings were widely covered in all the major reliable media, (some examples presented above) One more that I missed to add above is here.^[1] I have objections to deleting or redirecting a notable Blockbuster song that has been covered by reliable media in significant detail i.e. WP:SIGCOV. Talks of merger are secondary to Notability question. Regarding the primary question of notability, why do you think that these reliable sources I presented above does not show the article passing GNG ? At the very least please clarify why these articles [15] [16][17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] covering the song in detail fail WP:SIGCOV ? --DBig Xrayᗙ 07:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Pungi cleared of plagiarism". Hindustan Times. 13 April 2012. Retrieved 15 October 2019.

DBigXray Even if we consider that it has significant coverage, from WP:NOPAGE: There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic... there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page. and from WP:NSONG: Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. I have proposed the trimmed version of the whole article (stub size). Is there any significant/useful info left out in it? Add it. Do not add info already covered in Agent Vinod like lyricist, musician and other technical info. The song plagiarism issue is already covered in Agent Vinod (2012 film)#Controversies. So there will be no need of it after merger. -Nizil (talk) 07:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your query on my talkpage, I believe that song is a borderline case of notability. There are large number of links/sources about the song but depth of coverage is not that good. A paragraph is enough to cover information about the song. And if it is in film article than a lot of sentences on singers etc would be already covered in soundtrack section. So I proposed better merge it with film article.-Nizil (talk) 11:32, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Responding to ping by Nizil on talk) Thanks for agreeing that the song is notable (even if you think it is barely). Once the notability question is answered with a yes, it is quite easy to decide if the article needs to be merged or should be kept standalone. Regarding your quote above from WP:NOPAGE, the premise is mainly based on the context. Do you need to know about the film's plot or the story to understand this item song's plot ? Answer is No. A user does not need to read the film article if his only intention is to read and learn more about this song. No context is getting lost if the content of the song is presented in sufficient and necessary detail on its separate article. Regarding your second quote from WP:NSONG There is already enough material from reliable sources that the article has been expanded five times by me from a stub to a C class. I have already thought of a DYK for this song that will be nominated once the AfD tag is removed. So the assertion that "there is not enough material to warrant an article and hence article should be merged" has been proved to be false. Regarding the trimmed summary, I have replied on the talk page that it is not a good summary. You can add it into the main article but that does not mean the song article can be redirected. The topic is notable in its own right based on the sources and chart rankings and has enough material to merit its own article. --DBig Xrayᗙ 07:04, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nominator CptViraj - material added is mostly trivial and only reinforces non-notability. Note MOS:POPCULT indicates that WP:TERTIARY sources are preferable. Song has no significance other than in the context of the film, AFAICS all the secondary WP:RS added to the article discuss the song in the context of the film, all but two of the WP:RS date from the release of the film. No awards. No significant coverage of the song at later dates.--Goldsztajn (talk) 10:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to give more time to discuss the recent significant changes to the page
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Goldsztajn, I have presented several sources above that were published after the release, those sources covered the reception of the song. FYI an article was published just 2 days back in 2019, in a reliable media, and it is covering this song in a section and stating that "the song had gained cult status overtime". ^[1] So that should give an idea how off the mark you are. --DBig Xrayᗙ 08:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Laal Kaptaan: Top iconic dance songs of Saif Ali Khan from his films". Republic World. Retrieved 17 October 2019.

Keep - Good god what happened to this AFD!? Easy keep for WP:GNG based on the sources and the WP:HEY upgrade. Obviously notable based on reviews, sales, and the copyright dispute. FOARP (talk) 19:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the film article per WP:PAGEDECIDE. I agree with Goldsztajn's point that most sources are discussing the song in the film's context. Dee 03 11:38, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May I request you to kindly elaborate which criteria of WP:PAGEDECIDE are you using to reach a conclusion to merge. There are some sources that are discussing in the context of the movie but FYI there also these sources [26] [27][28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] where the subject of the article is the Song, and they are enough in number to merit a separate article. Please check these sources at the very least. --DBig Xrayᗙ 12:56, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that is where you and I disagree. I had checked these sources a few days ago but forgot to !vote at that time. Most of these sources discuss the plagiarism case, while others talk about the song in the context of the film. Then there are a few sources like bollyspice and glamgold whose reliability is dubious at best. BTW, I am not voting delete; there is clearly some useful information about the song that can be presented in the film's article. The point mentioned in PAGEDECIDE that is applicable here is: There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic. I am also in agreement with the "Merge" suggestion on the article talk page. Dee 03 14:27, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dee03, Thanks for elaborating. The plagiarism case is not about the film or film plot, the issue and subsequent court case is about the song itself. The sources covering the court case are considered as WP:SIGCOV. I have already linked few other sources in my last comment which talk in detail about the song, its video, music etc etc, i.e. all the artefacts related to this song. All these sources give exclusive coverage to the song thereby imparting it notability via WP:SIGCOV.
You have further argued in favour of merge using the Criteria 1 of WP:PAGEDECIDE i.e. about context. You are quoting lines from the guideline without stating if it really applies and why. I consider this justification of context, inappropriate for some very strong reasons. This song is an item number (song). The plot of the item number (both its lyrics and song video) is completely disjoint from the plot of the film. The only overlap being both song and the film feature the main protagonist Saif Ali Khan. I have seen the movie and the song, and I can tell you that the viewer of the song does not need to read about the film or know its plot to get a greater understanding of whatever is happening in the song video. Hence the quoted text is not applicable to our case of this song. This reasoning for "context" might have held true had this been a normal song from a movie but being an item number song this is clearly an exception to it. --DBig Xrayᗙ 17:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know what that plagiarism case is about. The song does not become notable just because there was a plagiarism case filed against its makers. I have already explained, based on my editorial judgment, if PAGEDECIDE "really applies and why". Additionally, I take objection to some of the wording in the article, such as "Republic World reported that the song had gained cult status with the passage of time", when in reality the RW source only says "The movie performed moderately well but the songs of the movie gained cult status over time." I can see 12 songs on the soundtrack of the film. SYNTH concerns and usage of unreliable sources to spuriously swell up the article prose do not help your case. Dee 03 20:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy coverage : Your claims are akin to stating that even if the reliable sources widely covered the court case, in separate article, completely dedicated to the court case of the song, the song did not become notable. Q. Did the court case about the song, get widely reported in the reliable media, or not? It did, and whether you like it or not, the controversy it created, was widely covered and hence it contributed to the notability of the song. Our job as AfD contributors, is to judge if there is enough independent coverage of the song or not, per WP:SIGCOV. The coverage of the court case controversy on the song, is still a coverage of an aspect of the song. Many banned books, songs and films become notable per WP:GNG simply because of it getting banned by the government. Because the act of banning generates coverage for the song and hence it passes our WP:GNG criteria. These extensive and detailed coverages from Wall Street Journal, Zee News, Hindustan Times, Firstpost, and Telegraph of the song controversy are significant coverages and they cannot be ignored simply stating that "they are extensively covering an aspect of the song" and not the song.
Song coverage : The reliable sources are not just giving extensive coverage to the controversy, but the song as well. The song and its contents, are discussed in detail in these articles linked at, BollySpice, Hindustan Times, Zee News, BBC, Dainik Jagran, Telegraph, Glamgold. Even if you doubt the reliability of bollyspice and glamgold, there are enough detailed coverages of the song from other highly reliable sources such as Hindustan Times, Zee News, BBC, Dainik Jagaran and Telegraph. It is unfortunate to see, that one is ignoring the mere existence of these detailed coverages of the song, in independent reliable media that is adding to the WP:GNG criteria being met.
Cult status of the song : Regarding your last line, about "Republic World reported that the song had gained cult status with the passage of time". As you noted in your quote from the source this is what the source actually said. Is it reasonable to delete the article covering a "cult song" simply because its movie performed moderately?There is no requirement, for the film to do well, or become a blockbuster, for the song to become a cult song. A song can very well, become a cult song, in-spite of the movie becoming a super flop, and not even meriting its own film article. There are several songs in India, that are very popular, but the movie tanked and flopped badly. I can give examples, but it is unnecessary here and you get the idea anyway. What really matters here is that "The song gained cult status over time. Whether the movie did well or if the actor got kudos or not is completely immaterial as far as the popularity (and hence the notability) of the song is concerned.
I respect your opinion but the justification you have given for reaching this opinion is fallacious and I had to point this out. --DBig Xrayᗙ 12:12, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cease with this bludgeoning?∯WBG^converse 13:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a worthwhile reply to my comment or an analysis of source I presented? There is no need to comment if you do not have anything constructive to add to this discussion.--DBig Xrayᗙ 14:36, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let me repeat myself: The source says "the songs of the movie gained cult status over time"; there are 12 songs on the film's soundtrack. And you are defending your incorrect synthesis of source material by saying "this is what the source actually said." I brought up the unreliable sources concern only because I find two paragraphs in Production section cited solely to one such source. There are further issues in the Charts section in which there are vague claims that the song had topped "all charts", but which charts are these claims referring to? There is tangential information about a Fatboy Slim video in the Video section. Once we get past all the problematic stuff, the relevant content that we will be left with can be trimmed down to one concise paragraph. This is exactly the kind of scenario in which one is expected to make an editorial judgement on whether the topic is suitable for a standalone article or better presented as part of a larger article. Also, my opinion does not become "fallacious" for rightly pointing out your errors. Dee 03 16:35, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please notice that the section header of the Republic article you are referring to is titled as "Pungi" which is also the most popular song of the film and the subject of this AfD discussion. " Pyaar Ki Pungi " and " Pungi " refer to the same song. Regarding charts, it was reported by Wall Street Journal as topping the music charts in India in March 2012. NDTV, India today and Scroll have called this song a Superhit, viral hit and hit respectively.[37]. Are you claiming that these reliable sources are lying about the song topping the charts in India ? On what basis are you claiming that this song did not top the charts as being reported by multiple reliable sources ? I can understand that one expects more detail info on the specifics of chart, but one cannot refuse to accept the reliable sources simply referring to the lack of details. I will not comment on rest of your statement since we are discussing the notability here and discussions related to worthiness of a few lines are better suited for the talk page of the article and not AfD. --DBig Xrayᗙ 08:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How does it matter what the section heading of the article was? What matters is what the source material explicitly states. And what it explicitly states does not match the current wording in the article. I don't think this is the "most popular song of the film"; I believe it is Raabta. You keep talking about how this song topped the charts. Can you tell me which charts you are referring to? Vague statements like it topped "all charts" are should be removed immediately. Dee 03 17:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point but note that FWIW the source explicitly mentioned Pungi song in the section header talking about the cult status of the songs. It is not me or my WP:OR but these [38] [39],[40][41] reliable sources that are claiming that Pungi song is topping the charts.--DBig Xrayᗙ 17:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the article about the film based on my reading of both the articles, the sources presented and the analysis of these sources in this discussion. I do wish to thank DBigXray for the hard work in searching for the sources and I think the content can be preserved in the article about the film. I will write a longer justification soon.--DreamLinker (talk) 17:45, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Explanation of my !vote
1. Information about charts is vague/not reliable -
  This is one of the problems in India since there is no chart like Billboard. The sources which claim that the song topped charts are not really specifying which chart. For example
  1. Report in WSJ Blog (IndiaRealTime) claims it has "been topping the charts", but then links to http://www.livehindiradio.com/make-way-for-pyaar-ki-pungi/ as the source of their information which is not accessible and not sure how reliable.
  2. Scroll article covers the song in 1 sentence where it says "In 2012, another hit song Pyar Ki Pungi...", bit doesn't elaborate. The term hit song also seems to be used informally here.
  3. India today covers in 1 sentence saying "Incidentally, it was only a few days back that the Internet was abuzz with comparisons between the viral hit 'Pyaar Ki Pungi' from Saif Ali Khan's Agent Vinod and Iranian band Barobax's hit 'Soosan Khanoom'.". The term viral hit is not standard and has been used to describe many videos.
  4. NDTV article says that a video by 2 Bhojpuri film actors dancing to this song went viral. This is a human interest story, not about the song's charting. While the article does describe the song in 1 sentence as "Agent Vinod's superhit song", it is a description and not an indication of charting.
  5. Something which is cult status would be described as such by multiple sources and there will usually be significant reviews. In this case, I cannot find anything other than the Republic link which is a Buzzfeed style lisicle. There is not much information other than "The movie performed moderately well but the songs of the movie gained cult status over time." This is also confusing as it refers to the movie and "songs of the movie", instead of the particular song (for which I don't see any mention other than the section header).
2. Sources are majorly covering the song in context of the film/soundtrack or plagiarism controversy. Most sources are short announcements and don't really emphasise why the song is independently notable of the movie.
  1. The somewhat substantial articles about the song deal largely with the plagiarism controversy. Report in WSJ Blog (IndiaRealTime), Zee News, Telegraph. However the controversy is relevant to both the song and the film it is part of. This is best mentioned in a single combined article.
  2. Some coverage refers to the soundtrack of the movie a whole. For example BBC is a very good source, but is a review of the entire movie album (I might add, that often it is the movie soundtrack albums which are notable)
  3. Some of the coverage is likely based on promotional brochures/press releases which extensively quote the people involved. For example, this Hindi Dainik Jagran article is most likely from one of the wire agencies as it largely quotes the people behind the song. The exact same article was reprinted in ZeeNews (and also in Bhaskar). I wouldn't really consider these as independent news reports.
  4. Some coverage is about the release, but are quite short. For example this Hindustan Times article called "Make way for Pyaar Ki Pungi" is actually just 2 sentences long.
  5. Some sites are unreliable/seem to have no editorial oversight Glamgold seems to be reproducing the press release or closely paraphrasing it based on this.
3. Article content
  1. Currently, content about the plagiarism is duplicated at the film articles and this song article. These can be unified.
  2. Some of the content about the charts is vague. Some of the quotes can also be reduced a bit. Considering the size of both articles, it would be useful to merge into the film article.

Overall, I believe a merge works best here. It preserves all the content and yet keeps it from being fragmented. Readers who read the film article are also informed about the song and the controversy (and vice versa). Off topic, this is one of the longest AFDs I have ever read. I think everyone on this AFD has made efforts to find and analyse sources and I really appreciate everyone's hard work.--DreamLinker (talk) 20:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DL, Thanks a lot for taking time and coming out with a detailed reply. I would register my disagreement with you on several points. (1) Regarding chart, Is there a reason for not trusting the WSJ article that this was topping the charts, the page it linked might be dead but the information does not become outdated. As for as WP:V goes, The WSJ stating it is good enough for verifiability on chart status. I hope you would agree that the reliable sources do not use the terms such as viral hits, superhits for non notable songs. (2) These articles are of varying lengths. What matters here is that these articles exclusively cover the song and its aspects in detail, and that makes it pass WP:SIGCOV. Regarding Glamgold article, if a blog mirrors a site, it does not devalue the article. (3) If the article is notable it can even remain a stub. The article content should be discussed on article talk and not AfD.--DBig Xrayᗙ 18:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

About (1), this is one of the problems with recent journalism. The report in WSJ Blog (IndiaRealTime) cited http://www.livehindiradio.com/make-way-for-pyaar-ki-pungi/ as the source of their information. I did find an archived copy of it [42] which says

The renouned object strain from Illuminati’s Agent Vinod stoical by a ever-so-versatile Pritam Chakraborty is trending all over and creation a approach atop all charts interjection to a comic, impertinent and familiar tone.

If the WSJ report relied on this word salad in an unreliable source, I don't see why we should trust it. Journalists can make mistakes occasionally; I believe in analysing the source critically. In my opinion, the WSJ report does not satisfy WP:V for citing the song's performance in charts.--DreamLinker (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When Wikipedia cites reliable sources, we trust the reliable sources and their editorial standards. Although the WSJ article linked that site, WSJ article no where stated that it is basing the fact that "the song was topping the chart" only on one site that they linked. So it is wrong to claim that they did so. IMHO responsible newspapers use multiple sources to verify and confirm their content before publishing it. In any case this was a blatant strawman arguement where you tried to nitpick WSJ. FYI On 14 March 2012, Hindustan Times (HT) reported that the song was "trending like hot cakes online" and was en route to the top of all the charts. The success of the song was credited by HT to its "comic cheeky and catchy tone".[43] India today reported the song as a chartbuster. [44]. So clearly there are other reliable and major newspapers in India that are also publishing that this song has been topping the chart, Any reason why you are specifically singling out WSJ and not these 2 papers who are saying it ? --DBig Xrayᗙ 12:02, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update I came to know that this song was nominated for 2 major awards in India. I have updated the article now. This is another major facet of the song that was not brought up before. 2013 Zee Cine Award for Best Song^[1] and 2013 14th IIFA Awards for IIFA Award for Best Male Playback Singer ^[2]^[3] The song Raabta from the same movie also has an article with nomination. --DBig Xrayᗙ 21:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ SRIVASTAVA, SMITA. "Zee Cine Awards 2013 nominations announced". Active India.
^ "Barfi leads with 15 nominations for IIFA awards 2013!!". indiainfoline.com. Retrieved 22 October 2019.
^ "IIFA 2013: The complete list of nominations". News18. Retrieved 22 October 2019.

I checked the nominations, but I am not really convinced, particularly as one of them is more about the singer than the song. I believe Raabta deserves an article by itself because the song has been in 2 films and multiple versions of it have been produced. That adds to notability and makes it harder to have a single target for merge. Pungi on the other hand could be mentioned in the article about the film.--DreamLinker (talk) 18:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is nit picking on your part. The singer was nominated for this song. Getting nominated for the best song is also significant achievement in the Indian film industry. Two major questions are of notability and enough content for a standalone article. Both of them are met here, as I elaborated in my response to Dee.--DBig Xrayᗙ 18:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we can agree to disagree here. In my opinion, the content can actually be trimmed. A lot of the content in the charts section is not really required. For example, the fact that a Bhojpuri singer had a viral video about the song is not exactly something I would expected to read in an encyclopedia article 10 years from now. The sources are more P3 gossip kind of news or listicles, instead of proper song reviews. A source claiming that a song is cult hit without any explanation and then giving it only a single sentence of coverage; I guess I don't prefer to use sources like that. The "Production" section also contains long quotes by Pritam sourced to bollywood gopssip sites of questionable reliability. The copyright issue is duplicated is the movie article as well. Editorially, a merge might be better here.--DreamLinker (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that you are using a lot of strawman argument above, on the sources. I disagree with what you said above but yes, let's agree to disagree. This sub thread is for the awards nomination let's focus on that. As you know there are no Billboards charts in India. What we do know is that these 2 awards are major and notable and are selected for the entire year. IMHO being in the Nomination for the Best song award means that the song was in the top 5 songs released for the entire year, this sounds like a good example of a song topping chart (not just a week but a year.) Hence IMHO, this also merits a KEEP per WP:Nsongs criteria #1. --DBig Xrayᗙ 19:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a straw man at all. I was addressing specifically the "enough content for a standalone article" part as per WP:PAGEDECIDE. My point is that if we trim some of the non essential information, this can very well be merged. I am not disputing the award nomination, but I am saying it doesn't convince me to specifically keep it as a standalone article. An award nonination/win is presumed to be a good indicator of notability because usually such songs are reviewed in detail by critics and receive quite a bit of dedicated coverage. This is an exceptional case where a song nominated for Best Song at Zee Cine has hardly any dedicated review/coverage except the copyright controversy.--DreamLinker (talk) 17:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bollywood (Hindi Film Industry) released 1,602 films in the year 2012, Assuming an average of 5 songs per film, gives the total number of sample space of 8000 songs, of which 5 were nominated for the best song award at the 2013 Zee Cine Award and another 14th IIFA Awards for IIFA Award for Best Male Playback Singer for the Pungi Song. But here you are doing all sorts of nit picking and strawmans to claim that this blockbuster song should be merged. All stats and logic be dammned ? For reasons unknown to me you fail to appreciate this achievement of the song, it appears to me as if you believe that no Hindi film song should have its own separate page even if the song has been shown to be highly popular/superhit/blockbuster/award nominee, you are proposing to merge it with the film article and IMHO this is not appropriate. The discovery of this facet of award nomination has already convinced 2 editors (WBG changed to keep and 4meter4 voted to Keep). So I am glad that there is still hope for Wikipedia.--DBig Xrayᗙ 12:02, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. Clearly passes WP:NSONG, WP:GNG, and WP:SIGCOV. The award nominations and copyvio stories convince me that this subject deserves an article seperate from the film.4meter4 (talk) 02:17, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep with optional Merge: Compelling arguments on both sides and a tough one. Comments by the nom and User:Goldsztajn, as well as others, that the majority of sources relate the song in context with the film, are valid for merging. Otr500 (talk) 09:31, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: I have a suggestion: There needs to be a gathering of the minds at WP:NSong and a discussion revolving around notability issue criterion for foreign songs on the English Wikipedia. Reading all the nit-picking gives me a headache. IF we are going to continue to promote merging foreign content here then there needs to be some basic understanding and agreement so there is far less battling. The article uses acronyms that need to be changed on first instance of use, and severe trimming to get rid of the bloat, but those are editing issues. The Wall Street Journal is a major publication and although more about the plagiarism/copyright of the song, shortcut to fame and attention or not, it revolves around the song but there really needs to be more. Otr500 (talk) 09:31, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Otr500, You are welcome to join the discussion that I had already started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force#Charts for Indian Film songs--DBig Xrayᗙ 12:11, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Otr500 (talk) 12:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. As suggested, I am posting this in RfD instead. (non-admin closure) Katimpe (talk) 22:42, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yanwen

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This redirect's purpose is neither evident, nor is it mentioned in the article it leads to. This was brought up on the article talk page two years ago, with no answer yet. If there is no way to know what "Yanwen" is or means, it would seem reasonable to delete it (the redirect might just as well be an error). -- Katimpe (talk) 18:12, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Yan wen" is the Hanyu Pinyin transliteration of 諺文, which is the Chinese name for Hangul. It's not a very plausible search term though (someone is going to come to EN Wiki and search in pinyin for a Korean term?) so I'm OK with deleting it. Even in Chinese, my first thought on seeing "Yanwen" was that it might be a reference to classical Chinese (called "Yan-wen-yan" in Hanyu pinyin). FOARP (talk) 19:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This isn't the right place for redirects - I would recommend posting this in WP:RFD instead. — Chevvin 19:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Declining suggestion to WP:SALT since as far as I can see this title has never been deleted previously. RL0919 (talk) 15:19, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Akintayo

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Non-notable individual. Promotional. Recently was edited to include links to seminars. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a very WP:PROMO article, but there does seem to be a bit of coverage of this man, albeit not rising to the level of WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. His winning of the prize is a bare mention in a long list of names. Mentions in the newspapers are mostly him talking about something else, and thus not significant coverage of him, there was an interview published in The Nation but this is a primary source/arguably not independent. Therefore fails WP:BASIC. FOARP (talk) 19:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt with ECP. The biography is hopelessly promotional. The subject may be notable, but if so, only a neutral editor should write a BLP. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete , A promotional article and does not meet WP:SIGCOV, Alex-h (talk) 16:43, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SoapCity

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable short lived website Rathfelder (talk) 14:20, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 14:20, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The history of the site involves a failed launch of a television network, the attempts by Sony to monetize their shows and a description of the website. Also, 15 years is not "short-lived". There just isn't anywhere this can easily go otherwise as it would be removed as TMI from the (already incredibly overstuffed) Y&R and DOOL articles, and completely confusing in Sony Pictures Digital. Nate • (chatter) 20:28, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I dont see how any of that makes it notable. And if you want people to understand your contributions please dont fill them with unexplained acronyms.Rathfelder (talk) 22:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "TMI" is a universally-understood acronym, and almost any soap fan knows what "Y&R" and "DOOL" are...that text box in the browser is also handy to search for any unknown acronyms. Nate • (chatter) 02:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as a universally-understood acronym, and these discussions are not confined to soap fans.

Keep. Passes WP:GNG. The nominator clearly didn't follow WP:BEFORE. There are plenty of newspaper and magazine articles on this topic (276 articles in my university library search), and even books. I added one book that gives several pages of history on this website to the article.4meter4 (talk) 22:28, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above arguments. Passes WP:GNG. Rollidan (talk) 21:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 13:23, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Kretzschmar

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find any coverage in reliable sources to indicate that the subject meets the notability requirements of WP:BIO. SmartSE (talk) 13:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 13:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject is not notable, editor that created it appears to be a paid editor, currently being discussed on Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard under Procreative writers Dexxtrall (talk) 13:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Below the threshold. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:33, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:33, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Does not have reliable sources to meet WP:GNG, Alex-h (talk) 16:59, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to American Astronomical Society#Publications. The arguments in favour of removing the article are well taken and supported by guidelines, the only question is whether to delete, redirect or merge. Since there is apparently salvageable material and nobody has made an explicit argument for deletion or redirect over merge, merge it is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Research Notes of the AAS

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.". Article dePRODded with reason "indexed in ADS". However, ADS is not a selective database in the sense of NJournals, so PROD reason stands. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, how is NASA ADS not a selective database? It indexes journals based on a manual selection, including only reliable content of interest to professional astronomers, and filters out crank material (e.g. ADS removed the Journal of Cosmology from their listings). It's no more or less selective than Scopus, so appears to meet NJournals C1b. Modest Genius ^talk 13:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not selective in the sense that it strives to be inclusive of anything that is of interest to astronomy, as opposed to, say, MEDLINE. That they removed crank/fringe stuff is really the lowest level of selectiveness and only databases like Google Scholar don't do that. --Randykitty (talk) 13:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 13:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The rationale for deletion is not supported by applicable policy. 107.77.203.73 (talk) 13:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've cited the applicable policy. Care to explain how this nom is "not supported by applicable policy"? --Randykitty (talk) 14:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Cited only in arXiv. The other citation in the American Astronomical Society is a sponsored link. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 15:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The lack of peer review and quick turnaround are interesting features in an academic periodical that could plausibly make this notable, if covered in some depth in independent reliable publications. However, I can't find that coverage. Otherwise, this is WP:TOOSOON. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to American Astronomical Society#Publications, and explain what it is in a sentence there. We can serve the reading public/scientific community by explaining what it is, even though the available documentation doesn't support a stand-alone article. XOR'easter (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect / merge, as per XOR'easter. It's not an unlikely search term, there's a little to say about it, but requirements for a separate article are not met. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:08, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to American Astronomical Society Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 11:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deck of many things

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable fictional magic item. Fails WP:NFICTION and WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. A single mention in a list of "most awesomely bizarre items of Dungeons & Dragons" is not enough to establish notability. Not a very active user (talk) 10:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 10:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 10:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As non-notable gamecruft. In fact, I don't think any article in Category:Dungeons & Dragons magical items is notable either, except maybe Bag of holding._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: I'll take a look at the category and even consider it for CFD. ミラ P 16:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:55, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable topic. TTN (talk) 16:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 11:34, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apparatus of Kwalish

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable fictional magic item. One mention in a "most awesomely bizarre items of Dungeons & Dragons" list is not enough to establish notability. Not a very active user (talk) 10:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 10:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 10:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:55, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable, gamecruft item that fails GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:30, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks the reliable, secondary sources to demonstrate independent notability. As noted by the nominator, the one list included as a source is not sufficient as an in-depth source, as it consists of exactly a two-sentence description. Rorshacma (talk) 15:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable topic. TTN (talk) 10:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Less obvious candidate for deletion than the others nominated in this tranche, so no prejudice to recreation if the GScholar sources mentioned are incorporated and raise the article above the notability bar. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:44, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cordelia Naismith

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined prod, so now we get to waste our time here. I don't think there is anything here to even warrant merging, this is pure unreferenced fancruft that fails WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 09:12, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment can we just group these Vorkosigan Saga AFDs under a single AFD please? There must have been ~20 articles nom'd today. FOARP (talk) 12:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a list of the proposed deletions. ~Kvng (talk) 20:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - It makes little sense to delete this article when there are still dozens of articles for individual characters in Harry Potter, a far inferior literary work. The proposed deletion criteria do not conform to WP:N or WP:V -- the article contains extensive secondary sourcing (not just primary sourcing) which establish that the character is notable and not just in an in-universe setting. A thorough WP:BEFORE search would have uncovered these citations if indeed one was performed prior to the current blitz of AFD prods. 107.77.203.73 (talk) 13:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which secondary source is included in this article? All I see are the books and things written by Lois Mcmaster Bujold on her website. Rockphed (talk) 15:05, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable topic. TTN (talk) 14:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and delete the whole slew too). This one at least pretends to have sources (most of the other Vorkosigan articles nominated for deletion didn't even have a reference section), but they are all either the books she appears in or things written by the author of said books. Alas, much as I love me some manic-dwarf-trainwreck-chess science fiction, I don't think society has noticed this awesomeness. I will happily change my mind if somebody finds some sources, but the only keep vote on any of them is, essentially an appeal to WP:OTHERSTUFF. Rockphed (talk) 15:05, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vorkosigan Saga as preferred WP:ATD. WP:PROD and WP:AFD are not the only options with these. If you're concerned about saving time, boldly redirecting might work. ~Kvng (talk) 14:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. A simple GScholar search turns up at least two dozen essays or books discussing the character. The Vorkosigian books are one of the most acclaimed series in recent science fiction, and have written about and reviewed extensively in genre, mainstream and academic sources. It's plain as day that neither the nominator nor any of the delete !voters have made more than the most perfunctory efforts to comply with the principles behind WP:BEFORE. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 16:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you list those pieces? WP:BEFORE also asks that you read them, so please don't just throw google hits at us, and explain how many paragraphs or such are dedicated to her in each of those pieces. You remember, of course, that mentions in passing generally don't help with making topics notable? My sampling of the GScholar sources (sadly, even through I have access to a university network and I use Library Genesis as a backup search, some of those works are inaccessible even for me) sadly ended up with only mentions in passing that don't go beyond a fictional summary of the character's biography. There are several paragraphs about her in in the chapter 'THE MOTHER-LODE: CORDELIA' but the work of JB Croft but they seem to be almost entirely a fictional character biography with little analysis, through granted, it's my subjective assessment (I invite others to access this source at [45]). Frankly, I read this entire chapter (less than one page, I think) twice, and I still have no idea what the author is saying much, nor can I even think of a single sentence we could add to our article using it as a reference (but again, I'd be happy to see if someone else could use it to expand this somewhow!). As far as I can see from sources I was able to access, this is the best, and I just don't think this is sufficient. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:30, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Piotr Vorkosigan

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined prod, so now we get to waste our time here. I don't think there is anything here to even warrant merging, this is pure unreferenced fancruft that fails WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 09:12, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Much as I like the Vorkosigan books, I don't think they have hit the critical mass of actually being studied and reviewed by people to have the intricacies of the setting be encyclopedic. That this article is referenced to primary sources, meaning this article is a secondary source (at best), is just the cherry on top. Rockphed (talk) 14:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vorkosigan Saga as preferred WP:ATD. WP:PROD and WP:AFD are not the only options with these. If you're concerned about saving time, boldly redirecting might work. ~Kvng (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aral Vorkosigan

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined prod, so now we get to waste our time here. I don't think there is anything here to even warrant merging, this is pure unreferenced fancruft that fails WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 09:12, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Much as I like the Vorkosigan books, I don't think they have hit the critical mass of actually being studied and reviewed by people to have the intricacies of the setting be encyclopedic. That this article is referenced to primary sources, meaning this article is a secondary source (at best), is just the cherry on top. Rockphed (talk) 14:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vorkosigan Saga as preferred WP:ATD. WP:PROD and WP:AFD are not the only options with these. If you're concerned about saving time, boldly redirecting might work. Nominating these as a group would also save time. Piotrus, are you trying to make a point by running these all individually through WP:AFD. ~Kvng (talk) 14:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not familiar with a tool that makes group AfDs easy, and they are too easy to 'torpedo' by the all too common super inclusionists / fanboys. If there is a point it is that your spurious deprods ended up spamming AfD with ~15 effectively uncontested and consensus for delete new threads. Perhaps we should discuss on AN whether you should not be banned from WP:PROD. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:54, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that WP:ANI discussion has already been done and my WP:PRODPATROLLING was found to be what PROD patrolling is supposed to be. Making threats and writing off others as fanboys presents a potential WP:BOOMERANG issue for you. From my perspective, you are the one who initiated all of this "spam" by eschewing WP:ATD and bringing them to PROD and now individually to AFC. ~Kvng (talk) 15:27, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have to be on Piotrus's side for this one, as your DEPROD rationale made absolutely no sense. "Consider merge or redirect per WP:ATD". There are no sources in the article, so "merge" is already out of the question, per the extremely basic concept of WP:RS. The only plausible option in this scenario is improve the article (if possible) or boldly redirect it, and you did neither._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:29, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did miss an opportunity to do bold redirects. Sorry about that. Piotrus missed two such opportunities. ~Kvng (talk) 14:04, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was and am expecting another inclusionist from the WP:ITSIMPORTANT camp to simply revert any redirect. AfD at least give a 'stamp' that prevents sneaky undoing of redirects (I am not saying you do sneaky undo of redirects, but I have seen such outcome, i.e. sneaky undo of redirects by some other editors, before. As such, I feel that if a prod is contested with a bad rationale, redirects are just a waste of time without an AfD to back such outcome). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining your thinking. The few sneaky redirect reverts I've seen are most often in good faith. Although there is technically no such thing as a bad DEPROD rationale I appreciate that mass-DEPRODDING is potentially WP:DISRUPTIVE. Unless there's reasonable indicatition in the PROD rationale why this is not a good idea, I will continue to DEPROD or boldly redirect PRODs that have an obvious redirect opportunity. This includes things like songs on notable albums, albums by notable artists, books by notable authors and characters etc. in notable books. These tend to be potential search terms and, your concerns about sneaky reverts notwithstanding, redirects are WP:CHEAP. ~Kvng (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. We don't need a redirect for every minor Joe Schmoe character in a work of fiction, esp. one that is not backed up by any reliable source._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:38, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable. There's nothing to merge, so deletion with a new redirect makes the most sense. TTN (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Vorpatril

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined prod, so now we get to waste our time here. I don't think there is anything here to even warrant merging, this is pure unreferenced fancruft that fails WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 09:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Much as I like the Vorkosigan books, I don't think they have hit the critical mass of actually being studied and reviewed by people to have the intricacies of the setting be encyclopedic. That this article is referenced to primary sources, meaning this article is a secondary source (at best), is just the cherry on top. Rockphed (talk) 14:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vorkosigan Saga as preferred WP:ATD. ~Kvng (talk) 14:42, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vorbarra

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined prod, so now we get to waste our time here. I don't think there is anything here to even warrant merging, this is pure unreferenced fancruft that fails WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 09:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Much as I like the Vorkosigan books, I don't think they have hit the critical mass of actually being studied and reviewed by people to have the intricacies of the setting be encyclopedic. That this article is referenced to primary sources, meaning this article is a secondary source (at best), is just the cherry on top. Rockphed (talk) 14:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vorkosigan Saga as preferred WP:ATD. ~Kvng (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gregor Vorbarra

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined prod, so now we get to waste our time here. I don't think there is anything here to even warrant merging, this is pure unreferenced fancruft that fails WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 09:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Much as I like the Vorkosigan books, I don't think they have hit the critical mass of actually being studied and reviewed by people to have the intricacies of the setting be encyclopedic. That this article is referenced to primary sources, meaning this article is a secondary source (at best), is just the cherry on top. Rockphed (talk) 14:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vorkosigan Saga as preferred WP:ATD. ~Kvng (talk) 14:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ezar Vorbarra

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined prod, so now we get to waste our time here. I don't think there is anything here to even warrant merging, this is pure unreferenced fancruft that fails WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 09:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Vorkosigan books are good, don't get me wrong, but minor characters do not need their own articles when there are no sources about them outside the work they appear in. Rockphed (talk) 14:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vorkosigan Saga as preferred WP:ATD. ~Kvng (talk) 14:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Konstantin Bothari

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG, one sentence about the character in passing in a book review is as good as this minor character can expect. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 09:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Much as I like the Vorkosigan books, I don't think they have hit the critical mass of actually being studied and reviewed by people to have the intricacies of the setting be encyclopedic. That this article is referenced to primary sources, meaning this article is a secondary source (at best), is just the cherry on top. Rockphed (talk) 14:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Illyan

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined prod, so now we get to waste our time here. I don't think there is anything here to even warrant merging, this is pure unreferenced fancruft that fails WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:55, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:55, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 09:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hyperbolick (talk) 23:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Much as I like the Vorkosigan books, I don't think they have hit the critical mass of actually being studied and reviewed by people to have the intricacies of the setting be encyclopedic. That this article is referenced to primary sources, meaning this article is a secondary source (at best), is just the cherry on top. Rockphed (talk) 14:52, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vorkosigan Saga as preferred WP:ATD. ~Kvng (talk) 14:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Koudelka (Barrayar)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined prod, so now we get to waste our time here. I don't think there is anything here to even warrant merging, this is pure unreferenced fancruft that fails WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:54, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:54, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 09:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hyperbolick (talk) 23:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Much as I like the Vorkosigan books, I don't think they have hit the critical mass of actually being studied and reviewed by people to have the intricacies of the setting be encyclopedic. That this article is referenced to primary sources, meaning this article is a secondary source (at best), is just the cherry on top. Rockphed (talk) 14:52, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vorkosigan Saga as preferred WP:ATD. ~Kvng (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dendarii Mercenaries

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined prod, so now we get to waste our time here. I don't think there is anything here to even warrant merging, this is pure unreferenced fancruft that fails WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:54, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:54, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 09:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hyperbolick (talk) 23:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Much as I like the Vorkosigan books, I don't think they have hit the critical mass of actually being studied and reviewed by people to have the intricacies of the setting be encyclopedic. That this article is referenced to primary sources, meaning this article is a secondary source (at best), is just the cherry on top. Rockphed (talk) 14:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vorkosigan Saga as preferred WP:ATD. ~Kvng (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sergyar

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined prod, so now we get to waste our time here. I don't think there is anything here to even warrant merging, this is pure unreferenced fancruft that fails WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 09:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hyperbolick (talk) 01:13, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Much as I like the Vorkosigan books, I don't think they have hit the critical mass of actually being studied and reviewed by people to have the intricacies of the setting be encyclopedic. That this article is referenced to primary sources, meaning this article is a secondary source (at best), is just the cherry on top. Rockphed (talk) 14:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vorkosigan Saga as preferred WP:ATD. ~Kvng (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ghem (Cetaganda)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined prod, so now we get to waste our time here. I don't think there is anything here to even warrant merging, this is pure unreferenced fancruft that fails WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 09:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hyperbolick (talk) 01:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Much as I like the Vorkosigan books, I don't think they have hit the critical mass of actually being studied and reviewed by people to have the intricacies of the setting be encyclopedic. That this article is referenced to primary sources, meaning this article is a secondary source (at best), is just the cherry on top. Rockphed (talk) 14:50, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vorkosigan Saga as preferred WP:ATD. ~Kvng (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson's Whole

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined prod, so now we get to waste our time here. I don't think there is anything here to even warrant merging, this is pure unreferenced fancruft that fails WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 09:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable topic. TTN (talk) 14:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Much as I like the Vorkosigan books, I don't think they have hit the critical mass of actually being studied and reviewed by people to have the intricacies of the setting be encyclopedic. That this article is referenced to primary sources, meaning this article is a secondary source (at best), is just the cherry on top. Rockphed (talk) 14:50, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vorkosigan Saga as preferred WP:ATD. ~Kvng (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Haut (Cetaganda)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined prod, so now we get to waste our time here. I don't think there is anything here to even warrant merging, this is pure unreferenced fancruft that fails WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 09:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hyperbolick (talk) 01:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Much as I like the Vorkosigan books, I don't think they have hit the critical mass of actually being studied and reviewed by people to have the intricacies of the setting be encyclopedic. That this article is referenced to primary sources, meaning this article is a secondary source (at best), is just the cherry on top. Rockphed (talk) 14:50, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vorkosigan Saga as preferred WP:ATD. ~Kvng (talk) 14:46, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

District Count of Barrayar

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined prod, sigh. I don't think there is anything to even warrant merging, this is pure unreferenced fancruft that fails WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 09:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hyperbolick (talk) 01:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Much as I like the Vorkosigan books, I don't think they have hit the critical mass of actually being studied and reviewed by people to have the intricacies of the setting be encyclopedic. That this article is referenced to primary sources, meaning this article is a secondary source (at best), is just the cherry on top. Rockphed (talk) 14:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vorkosigan Saga as preferred WP:ATD. ~Kvng (talk) 14:46, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable fictional topic. TTN (talk) 16:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barrayaran Imperial Military Service

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined prod, sigh. I don't think there is anything to even warrant merging, this is pure unreferenced fancruft that fails WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 09:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Much as I like the Vorkosigan books, I don't think they have hit the critical mass of actually being studied and reviewed by people to have the intricacies of the setting be encyclopedic. That this article is referenced to primary sources, meaning this article is a secondary source (at best), is just the cherry on top. Rockphed (talk) 14:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vorkosigan Saga as preferred WP:ATD. ~Kvng (talk) 14:46, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable fictional topic. TTN (talk) 16:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Biryani By Kilo

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company. All the links mentioned are syndicated and capital-raised articles. Doesn't pass WP:GNG Bishal Shrestha (talk) 07:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bishal Shrestha (talk) 07:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bishal Shrestha (talk) 07:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Company is notable but article is written in promotional way. Thus it should be started from scratch. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 15:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notable company but the article is way too promotional, it's best to just start over. Whispering^(t) 23:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. scope_creep^Talk 18:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn--Ymblanter (talk) 15:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kossi Koudagba

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The footballer never played in a fully professional league or for a national team, thus failing WP:NFOOTY. I do not see correspondence to WP:GNG either. Ymblanter (talk) 07:14, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:14, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:14, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he has played for the national team, see this. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 08:17, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strange, because the article says he was called but did not play. Is there any way to check what match did he play in?--Ymblanter (talk) 08:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The NFT link provided above says Benin vs. Togo on 28 July 2019, click the 'Games' tab to see. This local report confirms Koudagba's appearance. R96Skinner (talk) 09:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - NFOOTY passed, current international footballer for Togo per NFT and Djena Sport. Nomination made in error, it would seem. R96Skinner (talk) 09:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has played for the Togo National team passes WP:NFOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rules Regarding Nidhi Company

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Topic of dubious notability. Nidhi companies are a notable subject, but that doesn't mean that a page describing the rules governing these is appropriate for enwiki, under WP:NOTHOWTO. Fram (talk) 06:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 06:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 06:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The basic information is already available at the Nidhi company article; the present article appears to be a user guide on setting up such a company, which therefore falls under WP:NOTHOWTO. (The article also refers to itself as "this blog entry" and is substantially similar to a "5 Things to keep in mind before starting a Nidhi Company" post on a site which cannot be linked here, so there is a possible WP:COPYVIO issue.) AllyD (talk) 11:17, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elen Mon Wayne

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One of the two current sources is dead. The other shows that she was a member of a chorus that won an award. I can’t find any other reliable independent sources so my conclusion is she’s not notable as this article does not pass WP:MUSICBIO. Mccapra (talk) 05:55, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:55, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:55, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No WP:SIGCOV found in my WP:BEFORE. The Olivier prize was for the chorus she was in, not for her per se. Fails WP:BASIC as well as WP:MUSICBIO. FOARP (talk) 15:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:19, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:19, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:19, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NMUSIC, WP:NACTOR, WP:GNG, and WP:SIGCOV. She's an ensemble performer and cover artist (plays only when the headliner is ill) and has never had a leading role that isn't a cover role. She has never been reviewed beyond an ensemble cast list mention. In short, a totally insignificant entertainer per wikipedia's standards.4meter4 (talk) 22:06, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus that there are insufficient/no sources that are both reliable, independent and meet SIGCOV. Therefore, notability is not met. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Humanitainment

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Of the three sources for this article one mentions a video they released, but not the organisation itself. That leaves YouTube and Gawker as sources. Lack of sustained coverage from reliable independent sources, so not notable. Mccapra (talk) 05:28, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:28, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:28, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:28, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:28, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No WP:SIGCOV found in reliable, independent sources in my WP:BEFORE. I found the same attempts to define the term that the nom appears to have found but nothing actually supporting notability of the company under WP:GNG let alone under WP:CORP. As such this fails for not being sufficiently notable. FOARP (talk) 15:55, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Clear consensus that there is sufficient sourcing (both in and outside of the article) to demonstrate notability Nosebagbear (talk) 09:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Raquel Ferreira

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a linkedin of business executives, nothing notable for him, lacks indepth WP:RS, fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 05:14, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Take all the “resume” point of view out of it and she has the reliable sources needed for notability, not limited to the ones currently in the article. Trillfendi (talk) 19:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of detailed coverage in sources like the Boston Globe, Boston Herald and MLB.com to meet GNG. Larry Hockett (Talk) 11:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for her notable accomplishments as signified by coverage in a variety of RS. Given that the nominator failed to notice her gender, which is indeed why the coverage exists, I wonder what kind of BEFORE was done. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources in the article at the time it was nominated for deletion are enough to meet GNG. A quick Google search also turns up good sources like this, this, and this. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Per WP:SNOW. This isn't going anywhere else. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sheng Qi

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks WP:RS, fails WP:GNG, nothing really notable for him to qualify for a Wikipedia page. Meeanaya (talk) 05:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As well as the bylined short Encyclopedia of Contemporary Chinese Culture biography referenced in the article, there are available book references, such as a discussion of the subject's work in "Remaking Beijing: Tiananmen Square and the Creation of a Political Space". another in "The Urban Generation: Chinese Cinema and Society at the Turn of the Twenty-First Century", an image and discussion of an early group-work involving the subject, and multiple references to the subject in "Performance Art in China"; also an interview in The Independent. Overall I'd say there is sufficient for the WP:NARTIST criteria. AllyD (talk) 06:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AllyD. Plenty of reliable sources with in-depth coverage to establish notability. -Zanhe (talk) 07:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Per above. --SalmanZ (talk) 10:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above (the page is well sourced) and per WP:CUTTINGOWNFINGEROFFINDEDICATIONTOPERFORMANCEART. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep individual entry in tertiary source (ie an encyclopaedia), referred to as top chinese artist in NYT, work held at International Center of Photography and MoMA NYC, clearly meets WP:ARTIST... WP:CUTTINGOWNFINGEROFFINDEDICATIONTODEMOCRACY.... did anyone mention WP:BEFORE?--Goldsztajn (talk) 11:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Enough sourcing out there (and as noted by editors above) that the subject of this article passes WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG standards for notability. Netherzone (talk) 13:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it passes WP:ARTIST. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 15:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus that there is sufficient sourcing, with WP:ARTIST specifically met Nosebagbear (talk) 09:03, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Concept 21

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable topic, created by COI editor who has been editing around the topic. Lacks WP:RS, fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 05:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 05:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 11:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the page seems adequately sourced. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep either the first performance art group or part of the first wave of performance artists (pp.51-2) in China - meets WP:ARTIST notability #3 and #4. Google books search returns numerous WP:RS .... WP:BEFORE? --Goldsztajn (talk) 13:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:08, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Per the above, meets WP:ARTIST notability . --SalmanZ (talk) 20:00, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus that the individual does not (yet) meet notability Nosebagbear (talk) 09:02, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kwame Larry Tay

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing notable about it, completely advert page, lacks WP:GNG, WP:RS. Meeanaya (talk) 05:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 05:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 05:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Awards to graduating students are not inherently notable. Neither the reporting of these awards nor the subject's subsequent job demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 07:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete might well become an important veterinarian, but WP:TOOSOON. --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable . I'm not prepared to predict about his career--the relevance of student awards to professional sucess is rather variable. Rather than argue whetherr this meets a speedy criterion, I suggest SNOW. DGG ( talk ) 06:44, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete awards given specifically to students never show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:23, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Well, it seems like the only actual notability guideline that applies here is WP:GNG, seeing as WP:NFICTION is an essay and a TV series being notable does not automatically imply that an object in the series is as well. While a bunch of keep arguments are too perfunctory to carry a lot of weight, it seems like there is enough disagreement on whether the presented sources establish notability that this has no consensus for deletion (although it's closer to a remove than to a retain - saying "remove" since some people are advocating redirects rather than deletion) exist in this discussion.

I've seen Piotrus's request that I as the closing admin review the presented sources as well but I don't think it's a good idea; it muddies the distinction between the admin who impartially determines what the consensus - if it exists - is and the admin that supervotes on the basis of their own opinion. Whether Piotrus nominated a number of other articles for deletion is not really relevant to the status of the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:58, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Battlestar Galactica (fictional spacecraft)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFICTION and WP:GNG. A merge discussion didn't achieve consensus (Talk:Battlestar_(fictional_spacecraft)#Merge_discussion_(2017)) so I think it's time to push the issue here. I don't think we need more than one article for all various battlestars from all different shows. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The fictional spaceship Battlestar Galactica is notable as an important cultural phenomenon. This is evidenced by significant coverage in reliable, independent source of the development of special effects model, its construction by special-effects artists, and its sale, the model kits that were sold for it, coverage of it in the career of John Dykstra, the Emmy that was awarded for the pilot episode etc. etc. etc. I'm OK with merging all the other articles into one but this is on the same level (or a bit lower) in terms of notability as the Millenium Falcon or the Starship Enterprise. FOARP (talk) 10:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Sadly, those seem to be primarily mentions in passing and press releases. Where is the ship itself discussed in non-primary sources in more than just a passing, off-hand remark? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:11, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happily, the references cited above include exactly what you are asking for. For example, the reference in which they go into detail on how they constructed the model, or the reference in which they go into detail describing the appearance of the model when it was being sold and so-forth. The closing admin should consider that this is one of ~30 article nom'd for deletion in ~24-48 hours by this particular editor. FOARP (talk) 11:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The closing admin will do well to review the refs themselves as to me a few sentences are very much the definition of mentions in passing. And the number of articles I nominated is irrelevant, I had a few easy days to work on some spam backlog and I nominated like two dozen of uncontroversial fancruft stuff like Sergyar that was negligible for prod, since it was declined by a certain editor who tends to decline all fiction-related stuff he sees in prod (and probably should be banned from deprodding articles...) so yeah, it has to end up here... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect - The sources brought up by FOARP have nothing to do with the actual ship and are related to the show itself or are just very tangential and crufty references. It proves nothing. The article about the ship fails GNG and the show articles explain what the Galactica is and what it does sufficiently._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Err... stuff "related to the show", at least in as much as it discusses how the ship was created, IS related to the ship. One of those references goes into detail about how Dykstra built it, another discusses it's appearance, size etc., another discusses the sales of models of the ship. "Crufty references" are not generally recognised as a WP:DELREASON. FOARP (talk) 14:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is Articles for Deletion not a place to remake failed merge discussions. WP:NFICTION is just an essay, has failed as a guideline and so has no consensus or standing. There's plenty of coverage of the topic, as noted above, and so it passes WP:GNG. Applicable policies include WP:ATD; WP:BATTLEGROUND; WP:DELAFD; WP:NOTPAPER; WP:PRESERVE; WP:SK; &c. And for more essays see WP:NOTCLEANUP; WP:LAME; WP:LIGHTBULB; WP:NOTFORUM; &c. Andrew D. (talk) 17:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The fictional spaceship Battlestar Galactica is notable culturally and the article gets about 100 page views a day which indicates there is public interest in the topic. Granted the fictional ship is not as culturally impactful as the Starship Enterprise, but there are three reasons why the article is notable culturally. First, The article on the BattleStar Galatica television series indicates: "The series garnered a wide range of critical acclaim both at the time of its run and in the years since, including a Peabody Award, the Television Critics Association's Program of the Year Award, a placement inside Time's 100 Best TV Shows of All-Time, and Emmy nominations for its writing, directing, costume design, visual effects, sound mixing, and sound editing, with Emmy wins for both visual effects and sound editing." So it was a very popular series and aclaimable by notable entities. Second, and pardon my frankness, although I personally don't think the series was good in terms of memorable characters, etc., it was probably the best the lame, baby boomers were producing at the time (Wikipedia's article on the baby boomers indicates, "When Generation X came along just after the boomers, they would be the first generation to enjoy a lesser quality of life than the generation preceding it"). So until the baby boomers pass away, the size of their generation and their penchant for nostalgia will continue to make the article culturally relevant and popular. Third, in terms of coverage of the topic in order to obtain Wikipedia's notabality standards, I agree with User: FOARP who said, "This is evidenced by significant coverage in reliable, independent source of the development of special effects model, its construction by special-effects artists, and its sale, the model kits that were sold for it, coverage of it in the career of John Dykstra, the Emmy that was awarded for the pilot episode etc. etc. etc."Knox490 (talk) 18:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTINHERITED - Notability is not inherited. Because the show is notable does not mean ships on the show are notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - The popularity of the show has nothing to do with on fictional element. The sources talking about models or the sale of props are trivial mentions at best. The special effects behind the ship would be fine to include if there's other real world context, but otherwise it belongs in the main article under an appropriate section detailing the general special effects process. TTN (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fictional spaceship Battlestar Galactica is notable. This is evidenced by WP:SIGCOV in WP:RSs Lightburst (talk) 17:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the show, unsure of whether to keep the history. The sources listed above either talk exclusively about the process of creating the models the show used or do not mention the ship itself. They would support an article on the special effects used in Battlestar Galactica (if such an article were deemed appropriate), but not on the titular ship. Rockphed (talk) 19:52, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This source also contains substantial coverage of the development of the Galactica models for the television serieses, particularly how they were constructed, what their dimensions were, how much they cost to build, who built them, what kind of look they were trying to achieve (etc. etc. etc.). Note that this detail is nearly all from the smaller-font sections where the author of the book is editorialising (i.e., a secondary source), and not from the interview sections. Publisher is Tom Doherty Associates - a reputable publisher - so this is not self-published or whatever. FOARP (talk) 07:39, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned that above. I don't think it is enough about the ship to indicate notability. Do you have any sources that talk about the ship and its impact? A scholarly review of Battlestar Galactica that discusses the Galactica versus other fictional ships (say against the Starship Enterprise, or the Millennium Falcon, neither of which I am convinced are notable based on their current sources), especially if it goes into the symbolism of the Galactica being an enormous ship protecting a massive fleet versus the (relatively) tiny Millenium Falcon being part of a fleet or the (generally) solitary nature of the Enterprise? Even a review of the whole of either Battlestar Galactica that spent a paragraph or two discussing the ship would be a good source. I am sure that such a document should exist, and I regret to admit that I did not look hard enough for it. Rockphed (talk) 13:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I found a review of the sort I am looking for, albeit it is just a passing mention.

Carter, Bill (September 15, 1978). "Loved 'Star Wars'? You might like 'Galactica'". The Baltimore Sun. p. 26.

A better source would have at least a description of the ship, preferably with further commentary on its role in the show. Rockphed (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Contrary to my instincts given the number of disruptive ARS-type keepist editors who have already commented, this topic clearly actually is notable and merits its own article. Best to keep it clear of fancruft by bros who enjoy the rebooted series and didn't even know until they checked Wikipedia that there was an earlier 1970s version, though... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hijiri88:You do realize that this is about the ship itself, rather than the series. If so, then I would ask what your reasoning is that it deserves an article, because I would honestly like to know. It might convince me if it exists, because so far it doesn't seem to._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do. That's why I clarified that my view would probably be different if the article were about a fictional ship in some flavour-of-the-month show no one will remember in ten years. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:29, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That being said, per WP:ALLPLOT, I wouldn't be opposed to userfying it to, for example, User:Andrew Davidson/Battlestar Galactica (fictional spacecraft), and forcing such a user to put their money where their mouth is and turning this into the article I'm convinced it could be (and they are no doubt tendentiously arguing that it could be with no good faith sincerity or intention to do so). A redirect in the meantime would also be fine. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:36, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yulia Yuzik

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks in-depth news coverage for what she is notable for, really nothing significant found to pass WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 05:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 05:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 05:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Asides from the VERY high-profile story of her recent arrest, which has been reported in many reliable sources, we also have the following profiles of the this female Russian journalist/author: 1 2 and this 20-minute long profile video on Belsat TV. Easy pass for WP:BASIC. FOARP (talk) 12:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She is internationally known writer of documentaries about Russia and North Caucasus, translated from Russian to several languages, for example, here is in French on Amazon, Requiem pour Beslan. PoetVeches (talk) 13:14, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article needs some cleanup but WP:BASIC notability is there. The RBK Group stated she frequently appears in media as an expert on Iran. She has worked for Russian Newsweek, has been published in GQ Russia and her book "Brides of Allah", about female suicide bombers, was published in nine countries. Her book "Beslan Dictionary", about the 2004 Beslan school massacre that killed 330 people, had a preface by a Nobel prize winner and was published in at least two countries. Her detention and release were covered worldwide by outlets such as the BBC, Al Jazeera, The Times of Israel, and Today Nigeria. Granted, much of what is out there now is related to her arrest, but the information presented by these stories help to bring out her accomplishments. LovelyLillith (talk) 01:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - pass WP:BASIC for notability and reliable sources are available.--Wakowako (talk) 09:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Battlestar (reimagining)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFICTION and WP:GNG. A merge discussion didn't achieve consensus (Talk:Battlestar_(fictional_spacecraft)#Merge_discussion_(2017)) so I think it's time to push the issue here. I don't think we need more than one article for all various battlestars from all different shows, and certainly not an article per different battlestar (classes?) per show. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge to List of spacecraft in Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series) - The important guide here is WP:LISTN. I see no reliable, independent sources at all treating the Battlestars of the re-imagined series as a distinct group in my WP:BEFORE and as such this fails WP:LISTN.FOARP (talk) 10:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly pure fancruft, that is unencyclopedic and fails GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There aren't any sources here. Maybe if somebody could find a critical comparison between the old Battlestar Galactica imagining of battlestars and the new imagining. My search for sources on Battlestar Galactica (fictional spacecraft) has led me to believe that nobody cares enough to write such a piece. Rockphed (talk) 15:57, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. bd2412 T 01:57, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Colonial Blackbird

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fictional spacecraft, deprodded so we are here. No evidence this passes WP:NFICTION or WP:GNG, no real world significance, sources are all primary/in-universe. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:17, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect The argument by Jclemens in the first AfD doesn't sway me in the slightest. It fails GNG and is complete fancruft. Better off removed or redirected to the show article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:44, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is still in the same state as when I nominated it three years ago. The sources put forth in that AfD were useless in improving it. TTN (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons above. --mikeu ^talk 20:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There isn't any there there. It doesn't even have any non-primary sources, so no merge is suitable. Rockphed (talk) 15:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. bd2412 T 01:34, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Houston (disambiguation)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This disambiguation page only lists two articles. There could easily just be a {{Redirect}} on the top of Juicy J's article linking it to the Scottish footballer. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 03:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, nothing to disambiguate, hatnotes are fine here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: handled better by hatnote — Preceding unsigned comment added by PamD (talk • contribs) 09:42, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Primary topic with only one other topic. Geolodus (talk) 18:01, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The hatnote does the job. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Scott Burley (talk) 04:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

H. K. Screen Art

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Company is not notable, and the films that it claims to have made are also not notable. KingofGangsters (talk) 03:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:20, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:20, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No WP:SIGCOV in reliable, independent sources found in my WP:BEFORE, either searching under the Chinese name or under the English name. As such it fails WP:GNG, let alone WP:CORP. FOARP (talk) 15:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:11, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:11, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable, independent sources. --SalmanZ (talk) 15:35, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. -- Scott Burley (talk) 04:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kuwait Liberal Bloc

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This "bloc" doesn't exist and all information on the page is false. There is only one "liberal" bloc in Kuwaiti politics (the National Alliance) and it already has a Wikipedia page. The page has no sources for any of its information. Kman6651 (talk) 02:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The problem here is that there has been a bloc of liberal members in the National Assembly since the 2006 election, just that it is not a party as this page implies. As well Safa Al-Hashem has only been an Assembly member since 2012/2013, so she can't have been leader since 2006. --Goldsztajn (talk) 13:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Scott Burley (talk) 04:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pedipalp (Dungeons & Dragons)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An extremely minor D&D monster, with nothing but primary sources describing it. There are no reliable, secondary sources that would indicate any sort of notability to the fictional creature. Rorshacma (talk) 01:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 01:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 01:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. Can't we just speedy those D&D bestiary entries? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nothing stops editors proposing deletion of more than one article at a time. FOARP (talk) 12:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:55, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable topic. TTN (talk) 15:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. After rewrite. Sandstein 08:11, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tujhe Kitna Chahne Lage

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No claims of notability made. ("viewed more than 59 million times since the day of its release" or " 20 million views on same day" is not really notable.) Fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:17, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:17, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:17, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 04:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it passes WP:NSONG Criteria #1. A quick google search shows that notable song that has been topping the charts since its release.^[1] User:Dharmadhyaksha should be trouted for skipping WP:AFDBEFORE--DBig Xrayᗙ 07:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "After 'Kabir Singh', Mithoon works hard for Mohit Suri's 'Malang'". Deccan Chronicle. 25 July 2019. Archived from the original on 9 September 2019. Retrieved 6 October 2019.

The ref you provided says "Song Tujhe Kitna Chahne Lage Hum from Kabir Singh is in the Top charts since its release and even when the film is nearly out of the cinemas, the song remains Number 1 on all streaming sites." This vague one sentence in the very good editorial masterpiece of 5 sentences is not meeting WP:CHART. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:16, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One can dig in for more sources, but what has been found already is enough to convince me to Keep this article per the reasons stated.--DBig Xrayᗙ 09:03, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I am not surprised as this is not the first song related AfD wherein you seem to disregard NSONG and CHART very conveniently when probed. Just saying that it passes NSONG doesn't make it happen so. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 18:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dharmadhyaksha please refrain from ad-hominems.--DBig Xrayᗙ 08:23, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the weekly rankings of the song in Music Plus Charts

[46] Rank 1
[47] Rank 1
[48] Rank 1
[49] Rank 2
[50] Rank 2
[51] Rank 2
[52] Rank 2
[53] Rank 3--DBig Xrayᗙ 08:23, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So its ok for you to suggest to whack me with some fish but it becomes personal when i ask you follow notability guidelines?
And how does www.musicplus.in meet WP:CHART? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why music plus is not a reliable chart ? Please tell me which Indian chart is reliable, so that I can check out the ranking of this song on that chart. Meanwhile I have found another chart. For two weeks between 6 July to 19 July, the song was listed on the number 3 position in the top 20 songs chart published by Radio Mirchi on its site. Also this song remained on its chart for 17 weeks.^[1]--DBig Xrayᗙ 11:13, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Latest Bollywood songs on Mirchi Top20 countdown". www.radiomirchi.com. Archived from the original on 25 April 2019. Retrieved 12 October 2019.

Delete - There's practically nothing to write about; Musicplus charts are not acclaimed/significant either. Also, DBigXray has skipped over a clause that explicitly follows criterion 1 of NSONG, that he is taking refuge of:- Note again that this indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable. ∯WBG^converse 17:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Voting a Delete here is completely unjustified here as Note 1 of WP:NSONG states Note 1: Songs that do not rise to notability for an independent article should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song.
You claim "Musicplus charts are not acclaimed" but refuse to provide any basis for your assertion. Music Plus Charts, has published its criteria which looks quite reasonable to me. The topic of discussion is not Musicplus but the song. Please let us know which charts in India are acclaimed/significant according to you. I am sure that a song that remained on top of charts for 3 months and counting will surely feature in other charts as well. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP the current quality of the article may not be great but that does not mean there isn't enough material to write about it. --DBig Xrayᗙ 06:45, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WBG's rationale. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:16, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Per_nominator/X--DBig Xrayᗙ 12:07, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not recanting my !vote. Go thru some of those sources that you've dumped below. They're mere mentions of the song, even if an entire article has been written about it. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

yes, I have completely read each and every sources I listed below, but after reading your comment, I doubt if you have done so as well. The articles are of varying length covering various aspects, release, reception, review etc of the song but all the articles are covering the song "Tujhe Kitna chahne Lage". Please explain how you reached the conclusion that these articles e.g. [54] [55] [56] [57] from independent reliable sources are trivial ? --DBig Xrayᗙ 16:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In continuation of my Keep vote above, I am shocked to see how a notable hit song that has been widely covered by reliable media is being voted as delete here. There seems to be a huge disconnect in what I am seeing in my searches vs what others are claiming. I disagree that there is "nothing to write about it" as I prove this in the refs below. If that would have been the case then the song would not have been covered as Individual articles in the reliable media. Here are some of the sources that in my opinion clearly show that the song passes the WP:GNG criteria based on the significant coverage. I have produced what RS I have found that covers the release, reception and popularity. Multiple articles covering the song from same publisher are grouped together. DNA India^[1] NDTV^[2],^[3] Zee News^[4] Dainik Bhaskar^[5] NewsX^[6] India TV reported that the song was among the top 10 songs in the World.^[7]^[8] SpotboyE^[9] News18^[10] Catch News^[11] Zoom Times Now^[12]^[13] Scroll.in^[14] India Today^[15], Aaj Tak^[16] The Times of India^[17]^[18]^[19] Navbharat Times^[20], Amar Ujala^[21], The Statesman^[22], Firstpost^[23] --DBig Xrayᗙ 12:07, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Pandey, Prachita (31 May 2019). "Kabir Singh song Tujhe Kitna Chahne Lage ': Arijit Singh voices Shahid Kapoor's love and longing in this soulful ballad". DNA India. Archived from the original on 11 October 2019. Retrieved 11 October 2019.
^ "Kabir Singh Song Tujhe Kitna Chahne Lage Is All About Shahid Kapoor's Love For Kiara Advani". NDTV.com. Archived from the original on 2019-10-11. Retrieved 2019-10-11.
^ "कबीर सिंह का रोमांटिक गाना तुझे कितना चाहने लगे में कियारा आडवाणी की मोहब्बत का चढ़ा शाहिद कपूर पर फितूर". Inkhabar (in Hindi). 31 May 2019. Archived from the original on 11 October 2019. Retrieved 11 October 2019.
^ "Video : फिर टूटा शाहिद कपूर का दिल, रिलीज होते ही ट्रेंड करने लगा 'कबीर सिंह' का ब्रेकअप सॉन्ग". Zee News Hindi. 31 May 2019. Archived from the original on 12 June 2019. Retrieved 11 October 2019.
^ "नए गाने में गम में डूबे दिखे शाहिद". Dainik Bhaskar (in Hindi). Archived from the original on 8 June 2019. Retrieved 11 October 2019.
^ "Kabir Singh's song Tujhe Kitna Chahne Lage: Shahid Kapoor, Kiara Advani starrer to release tomorrow". NewsX. 30 May 2019. Archived from the original on 11 October 2019. Retrieved 11 October 2019.
^ Jaiswal, Jyoti (7 June 2019). "मशहूर म्यूजिक कंपोजर-सिंगर मिथुन का लव एंथम 'तुझे कितना चाहने लगे' वर्ल्ड के टॉप 10 गानों में हुआ शुमार". India TV Hindi (in Hindi). Archived from the original on 11 October 2019. Retrieved 11 October 2019.
^ Pandey, Swati (31 May 2019). "Kabir Singh: Tujhe Kitna Chahne Lage Song- अरिजीत सिंह की आवाज़ में शाहिद कपूर-कियारा आडवाणी की फिल्म का दूसरा गाना रिलीज़". India TV Hindi (in Hindi). Archived from the original on 11 October 2019. Retrieved 11 October 2019.
^ "Kabir Singh Song, Tujhe Kitna Chahne Lage: This Shahid Kapoor Track Is Melancholic Yet Beautiful". spotboye.com. SpotboyE. Archived from the original on 11 October 2019. Retrieved 11 October 2019.
^ "Are We Giving Enough Credit to Kabir Singh's Songs for Its Blockbuster Success?". News18. Archived from the original on 2019-10-11. Retrieved 2019-10-11.
^ " 'Tujhe Kitna Chahne Lage' Shahid Kapoor's starrer Kabir Singh new song out". CatchNews.com. Archived from the original on 2019-10-11. Retrieved 2019-10-11.
^ "Kabir Singh Music Review: The soundtrack of this Shahid Kapoor starrer is a winner through and through". www.timesnownews.com. Archived from the original on 11 October 2019. Retrieved 11 October 2019.
^ "वीडियो: कबीर सिंह का दूसरा गाना आउट, कियारा आडवाणी के प्यार में दीवाने दिखे शाहिद कपूर". hindi.timesnownews.com (in Hindi). Archived from the original on 2019-10-11. Retrieved 2019-10-11.
^ Scroll Staff. "Song check: Arijit Singh-Mithoon return for tearjerker 'Tujhe Kitna Chahne Lage' in 'Kabir Singh'". Scroll.in. Archived from the original on 20 August 2019. Retrieved 11 October 2019.
^ "Kabir Singh Tujhe Kitna Chahne Lage out: Arijit Singh song is next anthem for broken hearts". India Today. Archived from the original on 20 September 2019. Retrieved 11 October 2019.
^ "कबीर सिंह का नया गाना, नजर आई नशे में डूबे तन्हा शाहिद कपूर की कहानी". aajtak.intoday.in (in Hindi). Archived from the original on 2019-10-11. Retrieved 2019-10-11.
^ " 'Tujhe Kitna Chahne Lage' : Fall in love with the romantic melody from 'Kabir Singh' - Times of India". The Times of India. Archived from the original on 29 June 2019. Retrieved 11 October 2019.
^ "'Kabir Singh' new song: 'Tujhe Kitna Chahne Lage' song brings together Mithoon and Arijit Singh - Times of India". The Times of India. Archived from the original on 23 September 2019. Retrieved 11 October 2019.
^ "Shahid Kapoor all set to reveal the second song from 'Kabir Singh' titled Tujhe Kitna Chahne Lage today - Times of India". The Times of India.
^ "tujhe kitna chahne lage: Shahid Kapoor की फिल्म 'कबीर सिंह' का गाना तुझे कितना चाहने लगे रिलीज़ - shahid kapoor starrer kabir singh second song tujhe kitna chahne lage released". Navbharat Times (in Hindi). 31 May 2019. Archived from the original on 11 October 2019. Retrieved 11 October 2019.
^ "Song Review: अरिजीत की आवाज, मिथुन का संगीत लेकिन मामला जमा नहीं, वजह है ये". Amar Ujala. Archived from the original on 3 July 2019. Retrieved 11 October 2019.
^ "Kabir Singh's second song 'Tujhe Kitna Chahne Lage' is out". The Statesman. 31 May 2019. Archived from the original on 9 June 2019. Retrieved 11 October 2019.
^ "Kabir Singh new song Tujhe Kitna Chahne Lage shows Shahid Kapoor gradually taking to alcoholism- Entertainment News, Firstpost". Firstpost. 31 May 2019. Archived from the original on 14 October 2019. Retrieved 11 October 2019.

Why are you shocked that editors are asking for deletion but not shocked at the poor page 3 references you are bringing up? Most of the articles you have dumped here are reporting the release of the song. Such PR stunts are pulled by all films. Then there is second category of the articles that simple put words to what is seen in the music video. Then of course you have presented the masterpiece which claims the song to be most viewed of the YouTube song. Just like how vaguely these refs claim that the song "tops the chart", it goes hyperbolic in making the claim of being the most viewed song as well. User:Winged Blades of Godric rightly said that there is nothing to write about the song. What he meant was there is nothing "encyclopedic" to write about the song. For the sake of writing one may always stoop down the quality levels and also write about all the codes to apply to make this song your caller tune. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 16:14, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ignoring the beating around the bush. Same Q as above. Please explain how you reached the conclusion that these articles e.g. [58] [59] [60] [61] from independent reliable sources are trivial ? --DBig Xrayᗙ 16:19, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update I would invoke WP:HEYMANN now to keep the article. The article has now been completely Re-written by me and expanded 8 times of the size when it was nominated for deletion. Folks who believe that there isn't enough content to write the article have been proved wrong. I will continue my expansion and have plans to nominate this for DYK once the AfD is closed. I have added sources proving WP:GNG and added charts from India as evidence that this is indeed a notable song.--DBig Xrayᗙ 10:56, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow for discussion of recent updates to the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article is taking shape decently, though it does require some cleanup. I don't think notability should be an issue, enough cites...keep. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 11:20, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the article about the film where it can be adequately explained and also provided better context. The main reason is that most sources mention the song either in the context of the film or they are short announcements of the release. What is missing is why this song is independently notable of the film soundtrack. I might follow up with a detailed justification later.--DreamLinker (talk) 20:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY and WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. The article's text and sourcing has vastly improved since it was nominated. There seems to be enough text and coverage to warrant a separate article. If others disagree, I suggest they tag the page itself for merger and discuss on the article's talk page instead of having that conversation here at AFD.4meter4 (talk) 21:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:GNG easily met, and I could readily understand the context of the topic as a separate matter from the film, per WP:NOPAGE. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:59, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per 4meter4. I have not been able to look closely but I am going to side with keep at this time because I see the sincerity of an editor to make improvements in accordance to policies and guidelines --- and the length of time on the relist. Otr500 (talk) 17:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:SIGCOV with new sources. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 00:17, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

James Grime

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Essentially, James Grime is a very active self-promotion for-hire speaker with mathematics content. He is not a mathematics academic by any measure (no postdoctoral research), but a performer, a mathematics educator and entertainer

The sources are all promotional and non-independent. Many are WP:RS-failing. James Grime has written articles, but no one has written about him, not independently and in a reliable source. Some of the sources look like quality sources, but they are authored by himself.

Most of the content is personal trivia. So much is content based upon interviews, i.e. based upon himself talking about himself. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See also WP:Deletion review/Log/2019 October 12. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Note, I was the reviewer who passed the article for AfC, and also the requestor that the article be unsalted, so assess bias accordingly. As I see it, Grime is a professor at the very prestigious University of Cambridge [62], and passes WP:NPROF, specifically criteria 7. As noted in the last AfD, hes been a writer for the guardian [63], part of the Millennium Mathematics Project through which he tours an Enigma machine, and discovered a set of non-transitive dice. The last AfD was almost 6 years ago, Grime has been busy since then. Almost all of the sources have been published since then. Grime certainly passes WP:GNG as a popular mathematician, considering as well his viral contributions to Numberphile, and there is a strong case for NPROF 7. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:12, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Grime is a professor at the very prestigious University of Cambridge [64] Not true. Not Professor. H-index=2 means that he not recognized as a serious researcher. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- passes WP:NPROF, specifically criteria 7. It says: "The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity". Do you have a single independent reliable source that says this?? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:20, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- hes been a writer for the guardian [65]. Writing articles for the guardian does not get you a Wikipedia article. Authorship does not create Wikipedia-notability, unless you are trying to meet WP:NAUTHOR. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Grime certainly passes WP:GNG ...? Can you point to two sources are are independent, reliable, and discuss James Grime? Possibly there are buried in the copious non-independent sources listed in the article, and returned by google. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Numberphile – basically per David Eppstein in the last AfD. Grime focuses on public engagement so is not likely to pass most WP:PROF criteria, but it's perfectly possible for him to be a notable populariser per WP:PROF#C7 or the WP:GNG. At first glance I assumed he would be—Numberphile certainly is notable—but on closer inspection the sourcing just isn't there. Most of the references in the article are to non-independent sources or passing mentions of Grime in popular articles about mathematics. I searched quite hard and couldn't find anything better. The closest is probably The Best Writing on Mathematics 2018, but we can't have a BLP hanging off a single, one-paragraph contributor bio in one book. But it's not a bad article. In the interests of preserving appropriate content we should redirect to the project he's most associated with (Numberphile) and tag it with {{R with possibilities}}. It can be revived should more independent sourcing emerge. – Joe (talk) 09:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe: I think your comments on Grime's career in the nomination are in poor taste. We're supposed to be assessing the merits of the sources, not the subject. Remember that Wikipedia is in the real world. – Joe (talk) 09:28, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- - Did I come across as personally critical. Sorry. His Google Scholar shows that he obviously not a Mathematics Professor as someone (not James) says. James’s own pages explain that in completing his PhD he turned his interests to public speaking. It seems to reflect an honest interest, certainly not a lack of ability. He combines entertainment with education, which is admirable. All of the sources are “promotional”, by which we mean “not independent and linking to advertising to pay for his product”. He charges for his presentations, which is not a criticism of the person, everyone needs to earn money for their time, but Wikipedia is averse to building content on promotional sources. I’ve looked fairly hard, and I can find no independent commentary. He fails WP:PROF, and WP:PERFORMER, and the WP:GNG. I wish him well, but reliable others have not (yet) written about him. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quite a lot of people may have come across Grime when he has been giving a talk or they may have seen him on YouTube. They may be interested in knowing who the hell he is. By googling they'll either get highly promotional information or just detail about some particular thing he has done. For the sake of argument I'll assume everything in the article is verifiable – if not we can make it so. Also for the sake of argument I'll assume he fails all our notability guidelines (I haven't checked). But it is good to have an article about him and this article is worth reading. It helps readers and improves Wikipedia. If he fails our notability criteria it is because they are not perfect. Sometimes they give the wrong answer. They do not pretend to always give the right answer. They are there to guide us when we (as editors) try to represent the interests of readers. We should not blindly follow the notability guidelines when they fail us. (By the way a merge with Millennium Mathematics Project would be better than Numberphile but neither work too well.) Thincat (talk) 10:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Source analysis:

1. https://www.ice.cam.ac.uk/about-us/staff-profiles/tutor/dr-james-grime His staff page. Not independent. Irrelevant to notability. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:55, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2. https://www.numberphile.com/podcast/james-grime His podcast. Not independent. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

3. https://scalarlearning.com/2017/11/ep-146-numberphile-mathematician-james-grime-on-why-math-matters/ His own introduction to his motivations, podcast and YouTube videos. Not independent. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

4. https://thelachatupdate.com/2018/06/06/james-grime-numberphile-enigma-and-the-beauty-of-maths/ A video interview of James, softball questions, just an expose. Not independent. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

5. https://genealogy.math.ndsu.nodak.edu/id.php?id=155812 His NDSU page, virtually no content, PhD 2007 Title and Advisor. Does not attest notability. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

6. https://www.space.com/36450-star-trek-math-of-khan.html A report on James’ entertaining presentation of some mathematics in Star Trek. Not about the subject, not independent, does not attest notability. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

7. https://www.metv.com/stories/well-it-turns-out-redshirts-are-not-more-likely-to-die-on-star-trek More Star Trek educational maths joke. Not about the subject, not independent, does not attest notability. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

8. https://www.theguardian.com/science/alexs-adventures-in-numberland/2015/apr/15/why-the-cheryl-birthday-problem-turned-into-the-maths-version-of-thatdress James Grime wrote an article in The Guardian. Not independent. Your own newspaper articles don’t contribute evidence of notability. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

9. https://www.theguardian.com/science/alexs-adventures-in-numberland/2015/mar/14/pi-day-2015-pi-rivers-truth-grime Another article by Grime. On the meandering of rivers, and mathematics. Not independent. Does not attest notability. Not about Grime. -SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10. https://maths.org/ Does not mention Grime. Gratuitous reference forking content from Millennium Mathematics Project. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-18419691 Doesn’t mention Grime. About Turing and codebreaking, content forked from other articles. -SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12. https://www.cambridgeindependent.co.uk/news/pupils-have-a-cracking-time-with-enigma-cipher-machine-at-cambridge-school-9050145/ Local paper covers Grime presenting to a local high school. Not independent. Not about Grime. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to Number 2, James Grime does not run Numberphile or the Numberphile Podcast, he is only featured on the channel run by Brady Haran. The podcast has featured a number of notable mathematicians such as David Eisenbud, Simon Singh, Ken Ribet, etc. with James Grime previously being the only one with a red link.Cerebral726 (talk) 12:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not easy working through the refs but in the end none of them make a robust case for notability. The whole thing reads like self promotion right down to the little advert for their own shop. Fails WP:GNG. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A lot of people getting hung up on WP:NPROF above, but WP:BASIC is a much more easy test - which the subject fails according to my WP:BEFORE. I could not find any instances of WP:SIGCOV of the actual subject of the article, all I could find were one-or-two-sentence-long descriptions of him in articles about popular mathematics. FOARP (talk) 11:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect with {{R with possibilities}}–possibly with a semi-protect—per Joe. I'm a bit more lenient when it comes to reviewing AfCs than how I would personally argue at AfD – regardless of how I feel about the notability policy, I had an honest belief that such an article could survive an AfD, and would've accepted it (but would've tagged the article for cleanup) were it not for the salt, hence why I opened the DRV. Sceptre (talk) 17:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I too am lenient with AfC, especially on academic related topics, like this, but when the reference list begins with non-independent unsuitable sources, it is a bad sign. I agree with Grime is close to the line, but he is below it. Uncomfortably, it may require two negative incidents for independent newspaper coverage that provide a distant perspective introduction for him to meet the GNG. However, if that happens, these sources will provide the anchoring perspective, and the article won’t begin with the subject’s childhood interests, etc. Wikipedia has many listed in Category:Science communicators; is it harder for mathematics communicators? —-SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Most contemporary popular mathematicians are in the Numberphile milieu these days. Mathematics doesn't really capture the imagination like astrophysics (NDGT) or futurism (Michio Kaku) do, either. The only mathematics communicators that aren't associated with Numberphile that I can think of on the top of my head are Vi Hart and Kevin Houston, and I only know of the latter because he lectures in the compulsory modules at my alma mater. Sceptre (talk) 21:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't know much about the pop-math world overall, but there's also 3Blue1Brown, the hosts of PBS Infinite Series (recently discontinued, sadly), and Mathologer. XOR'easter (talk) 04:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now, without deleting the page history. I expected to vote for Keep, being familiar with Grime as a Numberphile presenter, but am persuaded by the above that Wikipedia's notability threshold is not passed yet. – Fayenatic London 22:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:17, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:17, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:17, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No pass of WP:Prof#C1. Still not enough sources to pas GNG for promotional activities. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, no redirect. I'm surprised not to find more about him. But searching for sources that were not mere talk announcements, and did not merely namedrop him in the context of Numberphile, I found only a piece from his undergraduate university saying he won honours and was going on to a doctoral programme, and a story from a university he had visited about his visit. I don't think that's enough to demonstrate independent notability. As for why no redirect: he's only mentioned on our Numberphile article as one of some 30 people who had sometimes been interviewed on Numberphile, rather than as having any central role in the channel's creation. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:13, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with a note that it may just be WP:TOOSOON. The most substantial recognition seems to be his inclusion in the 2018 Best Writing on Mathematics collection. There just doesn't seem to be enough to base an article upon. XOR'easter (talk) 04:11, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is more notable, as far as the general public is concerned, than most academics. MathPerson (talk) 01:55, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thought I had !voted here. Looking on WP:GNG alone, I don't see any independent coverage of him, and some of the articles don't mention him at all. Almost all of it is self-generated content or social media-generated content. I don't see how WP:NPROF is met, so fails both the notability guideline and the academics guideline at this time, possibly also WP:PROMO. Please don't redirect, either - not closely associated enough with the proposed target. SportingFlyer T·C 09:45, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 01:30, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of tribes from The Tribe

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The issues with this article were brought up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Tribe characters, which was just closed at delete, so I'm taking it here. ミラ P 01:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 01:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 01:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 01:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I support deleting this one – it neither needs a standalone article, nor is really within the scope of this encyclopedia. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:35, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's enough already at The Tribe (1999 TV series), which itself is barely sufficiently sourced (mostly primary). There is no need for subsidiary fancruft articles for this sort of thing. The sourcing for this list is entirely primary (Episodes), with two other links to the official website, i.e. there is no reliable secondary sourcing at all, so there really isn't anything much that can be merged. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable, plot only summary that doesn't need to exist to provide context to the main article. TTN (talk) 20:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Excessive, in-universe fancruft, sourced only to the series itself. No evidence of notability. Reyk _YO! 12:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

[Hindustan_Times-1] "Make way for Pyaar Ki Pungi". Hindustan Times. 13 March 2012. Archived from the original on 7 October 2019. Retrieved 7 October 2019.

[2] "Now Mika wants to lend voice for Amitabh, Aamir". India Today. Retrieved 7 October 2019. {{cite news}}: |first1= missing |last1= (help)

[BL_top5-3] "Happy Birthday, Mika Singh: 5 hit numbers to celebrate Bollywood's cool singer!". Bollywood Life. 10 June 2019. Retrieved 11 October 2019.

[BollySpice-4] "Pritam talks Pyar Ki Pungi!". BollySpice.com - The latest movies, interviews in Bollywood. 7 March 2012. Archived from the original on 11 October 2019. Retrieved 11 October 2019.

[WSJ-5] Sahni, Diksha (22 March 2012). "'Agent Vinod' Song in Copyright Trouble". WSJ. Archived from the original on 30 September 2019. Retrieved 11 October 2019.

[IE-6] "'I'll do the talking' will stand out despite Kareena's mujra' - Indian Express". indianexpress.com. Retrieved 11 October 2019.

[Movie_Talkies-7] "Pungi 'Panga': Iranian Band Barobax Apologises To Pritam For Plagiarism Accusation". Movie Talkies. Retrieved 11 October 2019.

[peppy-8] "Full Song: Agent Vinod's peppy Pyaar Ki Pungi". Hindustan Times. 1 March 2012. Retrieved 11 October 2019.

[Hindustan_Times-9] "Make way for Pyaar Ki Pungi". Hindustan Times. 13 March 2012. Archived from the original on 7 October 2019. Retrieved 11 October 2019.

[BBC_News_hin-10] झा, पवन. "'एजेंट विनोद': मनोरंजक संगीत". BBC News हिंदी (in Hindi). संगीत समीक्षक बीबीसी हिंदी डॉट कॉम के लिए. Retrieved 14 October 2019.

[11] "'पुंगी' पसंदीदा या 'मुजरा' मजेदार". Zee News Hindi. 17 March 2012. Retrieved 14 October 2019.

[12] "'Pungi' relief for 'Agent Vinod' Saif Ali Khan". Zee News. 27 March 2012. Archived from the original on 14 October 2019. Retrieved 14 October 2019.

[13] "करीना के मुजरे को टक्कर देंगे सैफ!". Dainik Jagran (in Hindi). Archived from the original on 14 October 2019. Retrieved 14 October 2019.

[14] "Agent Vinod's Pungi song a copy?". Hindustan Times. 19 March 2012. Archived from the original on 14 October 2019. Retrieved 14 October 2019.

[15] "करीना का दिल वर्सेज सैफ की पूंगी". filmibeat.com (in Hindi). 18 March 2012. Archived from the original on 14 October 2019. Retrieved 14 October 2019.

[16] "सैफ ने बजा डाली करीना के दिल की पूंगी". filmibeat.com (in Hindi). 17 March 2012. Archived from the original on 14 October 2019. Retrieved 14 October 2019.

[17] "'Agent Vinod's Pungi Bajaa Kar song original'- Entertainment News, Firstpost". Firstpost. 20 March 2012. Archived from the original on 14 October 2019. Retrieved 14 October 2019.

[18] "Panga over pungi song". Telegraph India. Archived from the original on 14 October 2019. Retrieved 14 October 2019.

[19] "Case against Agent Vinod's 'Pungi' dropped :Bollywood Latest News - Bollywood Hungama". Bollywood Hungama. 24 March 2012. Archived from the original on 14 October 2019. Retrieved 14 October 2019.

[20] "Agent Vinod's Pungi song gets clean chit from Bombay HC | News - Times of India Videos". The Times of India.

[21] "वीडियो में देखिए मजनूं बने सैफ कैसे बजा रहे हैं प्यार की पुंगी". Dainik Bhaskar (in Hindi). 1 March 2012. Archived from the original on 14 October 2019. Retrieved 14 October 2019.

[GlamGold-22] "AGENT VINOD's Pyar Ki Pungi making its way a top all charts". GlamGold. 10 March 2012. Retrieved 15 October 2019.

[23] "Music mania, Bollywood music evolves each year; 2012 was no different. Whether the lyrics made sense or not, as long as foot-tapping numbers came our way we didn't mind…". tribuneindia.com. No. The Tribune Lifestyle. The Tribune, Chandigarh, India. Archived from the original on 31 December 2012. Retrieved 15 October 2019.

[plagiarism-24] "Pungi cleared of plagiarism". Hindustan Times. 13 April 2012. Retrieved 15 October 2019.

[25] "Laal Kaptaan: Top iconic dance songs of Saif Ali Khan from his films". Republic World. Retrieved 17 October 2019.

[26] SRIVASTAVA, SMITA. "Zee Cine Awards 2013 nominations announced". Active India.

[indiainfoline-27] "Barfi leads with 15 nominations for IIFA awards 2013!!". indiainfoline.com. Retrieved 22 October 2019.

[28] "IIFA 2013: The complete list of nominations". News18. Retrieved 22 October 2019.

[Deccan_Chronicle-29] "After 'Kabir Singh', Mithoon works hard for Mohit Suri's 'Malang'". Deccan Chronicle. 25 July 2019. Archived from the original on 9 September 2019. Retrieved 6 October 2019.

[Mirchi-30] "Latest Bollywood songs on Mirchi Top20 countdown". www.radiomirchi.com. Archived from the original on 25 April 2019. Retrieved 12 October 2019.

[DNA_India-31] Pandey, Prachita (31 May 2019). "Kabir Singh song Tujhe Kitna Chahne Lage ': Arijit Singh voices Shahid Kapoor's love and longing in this soulful ballad". DNA India. Archived from the original on 11 October 2019. Retrieved 11 October 2019.

[NDTV-32] "Kabir Singh Song Tujhe Kitna Chahne Lage Is All About Shahid Kapoor's Love For Kiara Advani". NDTV.com. Archived from the original on 2019-10-11. Retrieved 2019-10-11.

[33] "कबीर सिंह का रोमांटिक गाना तुझे कितना चाहने लगे में कियारा आडवाणी की मोहब्बत का चढ़ा शाहिद कपूर पर फितूर". Inkhabar (in Hindi). 31 May 2019. Archived from the original on 11 October 2019. Retrieved 11 October 2019.

[Zee_News-34] "Video : फिर टूटा शाहिद कपूर का दिल, रिलीज होते ही ट्रेंड करने लगा 'कबीर सिंह' का ब्रेकअप सॉन्ग". Zee News Hindi. 31 May 2019. Archived from the original on 12 June 2019. Retrieved 11 October 2019.

[DainikBhaskar-35] "नए गाने में गम में डूबे दिखे शाहिद". Dainik Bhaskar (in Hindi). Archived from the original on 8 June 2019. Retrieved 11 October 2019.

[NewsX-36] "Kabir Singh's song Tujhe Kitna Chahne Lage: Shahid Kapoor, Kiara Advani starrer to release tomorrow". NewsX. 30 May 2019. Archived from the original on 11 October 2019. Retrieved 11 October 2019.

[India_TV-37] Jaiswal, Jyoti (7 June 2019). "मशहूर म्यूजिक कंपोजर-सिंगर मिथुन का लव एंथम 'तुझे कितना चाहने लगे' वर्ल्ड के टॉप 10 गानों में हुआ शुमार". India TV Hindi (in Hindi). Archived from the original on 11 October 2019. Retrieved 11 October 2019.

[38] Pandey, Swati (31 May 2019). "Kabir Singh: Tujhe Kitna Chahne Lage Song- अरिजीत सिंह की आवाज़ में शाहिद कपूर-कियारा आडवाणी की फिल्म का दूसरा गाना रिलीज़". India TV Hindi (in Hindi). Archived from the original on 11 October 2019. Retrieved 11 October 2019.

[SpotboyE-39] "Kabir Singh Song, Tujhe Kitna Chahne Lage: This Shahid Kapoor Track Is Melancholic Yet Beautiful". spotboye.com. SpotboyE. Archived from the original on 11 October 2019. Retrieved 11 October 2019.

[News18-40] "Are We Giving Enough Credit to Kabir Singh's Songs for Its Blockbuster Success?". News18. Archived from the original on 2019-10-11. Retrieved 2019-10-11.

[CatchNews-41] " 'Tujhe Kitna Chahne Lage' Shahid Kapoor's starrer Kabir Singh new song out". CatchNews.com. Archived from the original on 2019-10-11. Retrieved 2019-10-11.

[timesnownews-42] "Kabir Singh Music Review: The soundtrack of this Shahid Kapoor starrer is a winner through and through". www.timesnownews.com. Archived from the original on 11 October 2019. Retrieved 11 October 2019.

[43] "वीडियो: कबीर सिंह का दूसरा गाना आउट, कियारा आडवाणी के प्यार में दीवाने दिखे शाहिद कपूर". hindi.timesnownews.com (in Hindi). Archived from the original on 2019-10-11. Retrieved 2019-10-11.

[Scroll-44] Scroll Staff. "Song check: Arijit Singh-Mithoon return for tearjerker 'Tujhe Kitna Chahne Lage' in 'Kabir Singh'". Scroll.in. Archived from the original on 20 August 2019. Retrieved 11 October 2019.

[India_Today-45] "Kabir Singh Tujhe Kitna Chahne Lage out: Arijit Singh song is next anthem for broken hearts". India Today. Archived from the original on 20 September 2019. Retrieved 11 October 2019.

[Aaj_Tak-46] "कबीर सिंह का नया गाना, नजर आई नशे में डूबे तन्हा शाहिद कपूर की कहानी". aajtak.intoday.in (in Hindi). Archived from the original on 2019-10-11. Retrieved 2019-10-11.

[The_Times_of_India-47] " 'Tujhe Kitna Chahne Lage' : Fall in love with the romantic melody from 'Kabir Singh' - Times of India". The Times of India. Archived from the original on 29 June 2019. Retrieved 11 October 2019.

[48] "'Kabir Singh' new song: 'Tujhe Kitna Chahne Lage' song brings together Mithoon and Arijit Singh - Times of India". The Times of India. Archived from the original on 23 September 2019. Retrieved 11 October 2019.

[49] "Shahid Kapoor all set to reveal the second song from 'Kabir Singh' titled Tujhe Kitna Chahne Lage today - Times of India". The Times of India.

[Navbharat_Times-50] "tujhe kitna chahne lage: Shahid Kapoor की फिल्म 'कबीर सिंह' का गाना तुझे कितना चाहने लगे रिलीज़ - shahid kapoor starrer kabir singh second song tujhe kitna chahne lage released". Navbharat Times (in Hindi). 31 May 2019. Archived from the original on 11 October 2019. Retrieved 11 October 2019.

[Amar_Ujala-51] "Song Review: अरिजीत की आवाज, मिथुन का संगीत लेकिन मामला जमा नहीं, वजह है ये". Amar Ujala. Archived from the original on 3 July 2019. Retrieved 11 October 2019.

[The_Statesman-52] "Kabir Singh's second song 'Tujhe Kitna Chahne Lage' is out". The Statesman. 31 May 2019. Archived from the original on 9 June 2019. Retrieved 11 October 2019.

[Firstpost-53] "Kabir Singh new song Tujhe Kitna Chahne Lage shows Shahid Kapoor gradually taking to alcoholism- Entertainment News, Firstpost". Firstpost. 31 May 2019. Archived from the original on 14 October 2019. Retrieved 11 October 2019.

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]